4-Z5 
.fi4--i 



Wsit ^niucrgitp of Chicago 

FOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER 



MISSISSIPPI AND THE COMPROMISE 

OF 1850 



A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE 

SCHOOL OF ARTS AND LITERATURE IN CANDIDACY FOR 

THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 

DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY 



BY 



CLEG HEAR ox 



191.3 



Reprin-ed from the P\ nLir atk.ns ok the Mississippi HiSTORrcAL Socikty, Volume XIV i< 





\)i){ 






A 



i'ii:i:si;xTi;i) hy 



^i)e Wini\jtr&itp of Cf)icago 

FOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER 



MISSISSIPPI AND THE COMPROMISE 

OF 1850 



A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE 

SCHOOL OF ARTS AND LITERATURE IN CANDIDACY FOR 

THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 

DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY 



, BY 

jCLEO^ hearon 



I9I3 



Reprinted from the Publications of the Mississippi Historical Society, Volume XIV, 1913 



Nil 



^A^/S 



cm 

APft 20 j«(4 



Reprinted from the Publications of the Mississippi Historical Soctety, Vol. XIV. 



MISSISSIPPI AND THE COMPROMISE OF 1850. 
By Cleo Hearon, Ph.D.^ 

CHAPTER I. 

THE PREPARATION OF MISSISSIPPI FOR THE STRUGGLE OVER SLAVERY. 

The Struggle over the extension of slavery in the territory acquired 
from Mexico and the Compromise of 185015 significant inthehistory of 
the United States as a part of the struggle over slavery between the 
North and the South, which was finally to result in the secession from 
the Union of the slaveholding states and a great war to decide whether 
the existence of two separate nations within the United States should 
be recognized. 

The development of Mississippi had well fitted it to play a leading 
part in the defense of slavery in this struggle. Its climate and soil 
especially adapted it to agriculture; and its development was begun 
along that line by the French, the first European occupants of its soil, 
with negro slavery as a basis.^ Durmg the period of British control, 
which followed that of the French, the settlements in what is now the 
southern part of the state continued to grow in prosperity through the 
cultivation of tobacco, indigo, flax, cotton and grams,^ and the demand 
for cheap labor was supplied by the importation of negro slaves.* 
Though, after the Revolutionary War, the lands lying between the Mis- 
sissippi and the Chattahoochie rivers and the thirty-first degree north 
latitude and a line drawn from the mouth of the Yazoo due east to the 
Chattahoochie were in dispute between Spain and the United States, 
the progress of their development was not affected. The dispute 

1 This contribution was prepared in the University of Chicago and submitted 
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in 1913. 

A biographical sketch of the author will be found in the Puhlicahons oj the Missis- 
sippi Historical Society, XII, 37. — Editor. 

2 Hamilton, Colonial Mobile. Pickett, History of Alabama.^ 

3 Wailes, Report on the Agriculture and Geology of Mississippi, 129. 
* Pickett, History of Alabama, 323. 

7 



8 Mississippi Historical Society. 

having been settled in favor of the United States, Congress, in 1798, 
organized those lands as the Mississippi territory and authorized the 
president to establish there a government similar in all respects to 
that provided in the Ordinance of 1787 except that slavery should not 
be prohibited.^ Thus, in the very beginning of the organization of 
Mississippi under the government of the United States, the exist- 
ence of slavery within its borders was formally recognized by Congress; 
and, as the territory was rounded out by the addition of other strips 
of land, this recognition was continued. 

In the meantime, there was developing in the territory the industry 
that was surely making slavery a profitable institution and sweeping 
out of the Southern states all opposition to its continuance. The 
cultivation of cotton there, as elsewhere, was tremendously stimulated 
by the introduction of Whitney's cotton gin. The first gin in Missis- 
sippi was constructed in 1795, and two years later Sir William Dunbar 
declared that cotton had become the universal crop of the Natchez 
district.^ A letter from Governor Claiborne, in 1801, contains a state- 
ment of the remarkable returns from labor in Mississippi when applied 
to the production of cotton. He writes: 

I have heard it supposed by men whose opinions are entitled to respect, that the 
aggregate amount of the Sales of Cotton, raised the present year, in this District 
wiU exceed 700,000 Dollars, which among a people, whose members (of all denomi- 
nations) do not exceed nine thousand, is an immense Revenue; — The fact is, that 
Labour here, is more valuable than in any other part of the United States, and the 
industrial portion of the citizens are amassing great fortunes."^ 

Naturally this wonderful productivity of labor stimulated the 
importation of slaves and the number in the territory increased in the 
decade from 1800 to 1810 from 3,389 to 17,088.^ Governors of the 
territory, foreseeing the time when the slaves would outnumber the 
white population, viewed with alarm the increasing number of 

^ United States Statutes at Large, I, 549. 

There was a sharp debate in the House over an amendment to this bill, proposed 
by Thacher of Massachusetts, prohibiting slavery in the territory, which is inter- 
esting both as the beginning in Congress of the struggle over slavery in the terri- 
tories and as advancing many of the arguments on which both sides were later to rely. 
Annuls of Congress, sth Cong., 1797-1799, II, 1310^-11. 

* Wailes, Report on the Agriculture and Geology of Mississippi, 167. 
Claiborne, Mississippi as a Province, Territory and State, I, 143. 

^ Letter from Governor Claiborne to James Madison, Secretary of State, Natchez, 
December 20, 1801, Mississippi Territorial Archives, 1798-1803, I, 363. 

" Ninth Census of the United States, 1870, I, 41-43. The number of inhabitants 
increased during the decade from 8,850 to 40,352. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hear on. 9 

slaves® and favored the passage by the legislature of laws restricting 
their importation.^" But the economic advantages of slavery out- 
weighed, with the territorial legislatures, any dread of future danger 
and no such laws were passed." 

Thus slavery was firmly fixed in Mississippi during its colonial and 
territorial existence; and, in 18 17, when the Mississippi territory was 
divided and that part of it now known as Mississippi was organized 
as a state, there was no division in the constitutional convention on 
the continuation of slavery, the greatest restriction laid by the conven- 
tion on the development of the institution being the granting to the 
general assembly of the state the right to prohibit the introduction 
of slaves into the state as merchandise. 

But the legislatures of the state showed no more desire to exercise 
this power than had the territorial legislatures. And partly as the 
result of this importation of slaves for trafiic, but more as the result of 
the bringing in of slaves by their owners in the great tide of immigra- 
tion that set into this section after the War of 1812,^2 ^^g number of 
slaves in Mississippi had increased, in 1820, to 32,814^^ and slavery 
was estabUshed in every county organized in the state.^* In the four 
lower counties on the Mississippi river, the slaves outnumbered the 
white population and in Warren fell little short of it; and even in the 
less fertile "piney woods" counties of the east and in sparsely settled 
Monroe, on the Tombigbee, their number did not fall below one-fifth 
that of the white population. 

But though in 1820, because of its rich returns, slavery was defi- 



3 Address to the Militia Officers by Governor Sargent, January 12, 1801, Missis- 
sippi Territorial Archives, 1 798-1803, I, 324-5. 

1" Letter from Governor Claiborne to James Madison, January 23, 1802, Ibid., 
I, 374. Message of Governor Williams to the Legislature, December 4, 1807, 
Dunbar Rowland, Encyclopedia of Mississippi History, II, 677. 

^ The only restrictions the legislature laid on the traffic in slaves were the prohi- 
bition of the introduction of criminals and the laying of a tax of $5 on each individ- 
ual imported. 

" The greatness of this tide of immigration is shown by the census reports. The 
total population of the Mississippi territory in 1810 was 40,352; by 1820 this popu- 
lation had increased to 127,901 in Alabama and 75,448 in Mississippi. Ninth 
Census of the United States, 1870, I, 41-43. 

" The niunber of slaves in 1810 in the Mississippi territory was 17,088; in 1820, 
the number in Mississippi was 32,814, and in Alabama 41,878. Ibid. 

" These counties, except Monroe, were in the southern part of the state and 
included all the lands over which the state had control before 1820. Riley, School 
History of Mississippi, map, p. 150. 



lo Mississippi Historical Society. 

nitely accepted as an economic institution in every county in Missis- 
sippi, it was not yet regarded as an institution to be praised and its 
justification was not found in the laws of nature or of God.^^ This 
attitude toward slavery was to be developed in the next twenty years. 

During these years, the Indians, who before 1820 had occupied all 
except a small portion of the state, were removed^^ and their lands 
opened to settlers. Beginning with 1833, the sale of public lands was 
remarkable,^'' and the state was rapidly filled with settlers, the total 
population in 1840 having increased to 375,651. The wonderful re- 
turns from the culture of cotton was the great factor in attracting 
this stream of immigration into Mississippi, and the production of 
that staple increased from 43,000 bales in 1820^^ to 483,504 bales in 
1840.'^ Since this cotton was produced, in the main, by slave labor, 
there was a corresponding increase, during these years, in the nimiber 
of slaves in the state. In 1840, the slave population of Mississippi 
numbered 195, 211^° and Mississippi had become a "black state." 

During the next decade, the total population, the number of slaves, 
and the production of cotton continued to increase in Mississippi. By 
1850 the population reached 606,526 and the number of slaves 309,- 
878;^^ but there was not a corresponding increase in the production of 
cotton, only 484,292 bales having been produced in that year.^ 

From these statistics it will be seen that, when the great struggle 



" This is shown in the decisions of the supreme court of the state. "What are 
these vested rights," asked the supreme court in June 1818, "are they derived from 
nature or from municipal law? Slavery is condemned by reason and by the laws 
of nature. It exists and can only exist, through mimicipal regulations, and in 
matters of doubt, it is not an unquestioned rule, that courts must lean 'in favorem 
\itae et libcrtatis?' " Opinion of the Supreme Court of Mississippi in the case of 
Harry and Others vs. Decker and Hopkins, June term, 1818, Walker, Reports of 
Cases Adjudged in the Supreme Court of Mississippi, 42. 

In June 1820, the supreme court again declared that "slaverj' exists not by force 
of the law of nature or of nations, but by virtue only of the positive provisions of the 
law, to these the master must look for all his rights." State vs. Jones Walker, 83. 

•*The Choctaws made a cession of a part of their lands to the United States 
government in 1820 and of the remainder in 1830. The Chickasaws ceded theirs 
in 1832. Riley, School History of Mississippi, map, p. 150. 

" Watkins, King Cotton, 162. 

'»Ibid., Ch. 8. 

'* Compendium of Sixth Census, 1840, 22S. 

-" Ninth Census of the United States, 1870, I, 41-43. 

" Ibid. 

^ Seventh Census of the United States, 1850, p. 45S. This was not a normal crop, 
however, 541,946 bales having been produced the preceding year and 501,146 bales 
tlic following. Watkins, King Cotton, Ch. 8. 







DISTRIBUTION OF 
SLAVES, AND THE P 
COTTON IN MISSISS 
ORANGE, COUNTIE 

MORE THAN 

ITANTS. 
GREEN, COUNTIES C 

TWEEN 5,0 

INHABITANT 
WHITE, COUNTIES 

LESS THAN 

ITANTS. 

(TTTTj COUNTIES CONTAINING A NEGRO POPULATION OF MORE THAN 50%. 

LV . J COUNTIES CONTAINING A NEGRO POPULATION OF BETWEEN 2 5% AND 

KSonN 5 0%. 

I I COUNTIES CONTAINING A NEGRO POPULATION OF LESS THAN 25%. 

COUNTIES PRODUCING MORE THAN 10,000 BALES OF COTTON. 
COUNTIES PRODUCING BETWEEN 2,500 AND 10,000 BALES OFCOTTON. 
I 1 COUNTIES PRODUCING LESS THAN 2,500 BALES OF COTTON, 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hear on. 11 

over slavery between the sections came, the development of Mississippi 
on the basis that had been established in the period of its territorial 
and colonial existence, the cultivation, with negro slaves, of cotton as 
the great staple crop, was well under way. But this development had 
not been equal in every part of the state and the distribution of popu- 
lation, slaves, and the production of cotton as shown in the census of 
1850 is of great interest in the study of the attitude of the various 
counties of the state in the struggle over slavery between the North 
and the South. The most populous district of the state consisted of 
the Chickasaw counties in the north and extended south, in the east, 
along the Alabama line through Kemper coimty, and in the west, 
along the Big Black river on both sides to its mouth and then down the 
Mississippi to the southern boundary of the state. The least popu- 
lous districts were the fertile Mississippi- Yazoo delta, the lack of 
drainage having impeded its development, and the southeastern 
part of the state, for the most part the long-leaf pine region. The 
black belt of the state was fairly well fixed in 1850. The great mass 
of it was in the west, extending along the Mississippi the whole length 
of the state, and including twenty-two of the fifty-nine counties. In 
the east, on the Tombigbee river, there was also a group of four coun- 
ties, Monroe, Lowndes, Noxubee, and Oktibbeha, that belonged to 
the black belt. In all the other counties of the state, except sparsely 
settled Harrison, Jones, Smith, and Newton, in the southeast and the 
populous counties of Itawamba, Tishomingo, and Tippah, in the north- 
east, the slaves exceeded one-fourth of the total population. It 
might be supposed that the cotton belt would coincide with the 
black belt, but the agricultural development of the state was not 
sufficiently complete for this to be true. The most important varia- 
tion was in the Mississippi- Yazoo delta. TVlthough all the counties 
in that region were being developed with slave labor and before the 
next census were to be important contributors to the total amount 
of cotton produced in the state, in 1850, only Washington produced 
more than 10,000 bales, Timica, Coahoma, and Sunflower falling below 
2,500 bales. In the other counties, cotton was either the dominant or 
an important economic interest except in a group of seventeen counties 
in the southeastern part of the state, the majority of which were in 
the "piney woods" region.^ 



*' For distribution of population, slaves, and the production of cotton in Missis- 
sippi in 1850, see map i. 



12 Mississippi Historical Society. 

Though slavery and the rich returns from it in the production of 
cotton were unequally distributed in Mississippi, there is no evidence 
of the opposition of any section of the state to the institution. A 
sectionaUsm, it is true, arose very early in the history of the state 
between the older and better developed counties in the southwest, 
on the one hand, and the new ones north of the original counties 
and the less fertile ones in the long-leaf pine regions, on the other. 
This sectionalism was due, however, in part to the difference in the 
state of the economic development of the two sections and in part 
to the unwillingness of the older dominant counties to surrender the 
political control of the state; and shifting somewhat with the economic 
development of the counties, was destined to continue as long as the 
economic conditions on which it was based. In regard to the protec- 
tion and the promotion of slavery, the sections were in accord, the 
only difference being that the more undeveloped and the less wealthy, 
as was natural, was willing to resort to more radical measures to fur- 
ther these ends than the richer and more conservative section. These 
statements are borne out by the proceedings of the second constitu- 
tional convention. 

As new counties were organized in the Indian cessions, the political 
strength of the state passed, of course, to the north and east; and, in 
1832, this shifting of political power resulted in a convention of the 
state to amend the constitution of 181 7 so as to make it accord more 
with the views of the new dominant sections. The only division in 
this convention on the subject of slavery was on the question of the 
prohibition of the importation of slaves into the state for sale. Prob- 
ably as a result of the stimulus of the Nat Turner insurrection in 
Virginia, a provision was adopted declaring: 

The introduction of slaves into this state as merchandise or for sale, shall be 
prohibited from and after the first day of May, eighteen hundred and thirty-three: 
Provided, that the actual settler or settlers shall not be prohibited from purchasing 
slaves in any state in the Union and bringing them into this state for their own 
individual use, until the year eighteen hundred and forty-five.'*'' 

While the divisions in the convention on these provisions were not 
entirely sectional, the opposition to the prohibition of the introduction 

" The Constitution of the State of Mississippi as revised in convention on the 
twenty-sixth day of October, A.D., 1832. Journal of the Convention of the Stale of 
Mississippi, 1832, Appendix, p. 25. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 13 

of slaves as merchandise was almost entirely from the new and mide- 
veloped counties north of the original ones and the "piney woods" 
counties in the east.^^ On the other hand, the opposition to the 
proviso came from the counties in the west.^^ 

The removal by the convention of 1832 of all property qualifica- 
tions for voting or holding office placed the power over the political 
affairs of the state securely in the hands of the small slaveholders and 
the non-slaveholders, and those classes thereafter, through the Demo- 
cratic party, lorded it over the great planters, who, for the most part, 
were members of the Whig party, in respect to the bank, repudiation 
of bonds, and other national and local issues. Yet they made no effort 
to restrict the development of slavery in the state by the enactment 
of the legislation necessary to carry into effect the provisions of the 
constitution of 1832 concerning the importation of slaves.^^ In fact 
the Democratic party in Mississippi manifested a devotion to slavery 
hardly equaled by the Whig and a willingness to resort to more extreme 
measures for its protection and promotion. 

Hence, when the movement came for the expansion of the United 
States to the west that was to result in the great struggle between 
the sections over slavery, the people of Mississippi, as a whole, were 
committed to the support of slavery. They were, also, convinced 
that their social existence, economic prosperity, and poHtical power 
were bound up with that institution, and were ready to further expan- 
sion to the southwest as conducive to the promotion of its prosperity. 
A report made in the legislature, in 1837, by a committee of the House, 
recommending the annexation of Texas, gives evidence of this and, 
also, of the change taking place in the state in regard to the earlier 

25 The vote on the resolution of McNabb, of Pike, to strike out the provision 
relating to the prohibition of the introduction of slaves as merchandise was seven- 
teen yeas and twenty-six nays. The yeas were two each from Copiah and Yazoo, 
and one each from Hancock, Monroe, Rankin, Lawrence, Pike, Greene, Covington, 
Lowndes, and the districts composed of Yazoo and Madison, Copiah and Jefferson, 
Lawrence, Simpson, and Covington, Amite and Franklin, and Monroe, Lowndes, 
and Rankin. Journal of the Constitutional Convention of Mississippi, 1832, 159. 

-^ The vote on this proviso, introduced by Howard of Rankin, was 28 yeas and 
IS nays. The nays were two each from Jefferson, Amite, and Wilkinson and one 
each from Adams, Claiborne, Franklin, Hinds, Marion, Pike, Washington, and the 
districts composed of Amite and Franklin and Pike and Marion. Ibid., 174. 

-' The Supreme Court of the United States decided that a legislative enactment 
was necessary to carry those provisions of the constitution into effect. Claiborne, 
Mississippi as a Province, Territory and State, 476. 



14 Mississippi Historical Society. 

\dew of slavery as an e\al. The committee urged the interests of 
slavery as a reason why the South should demand annexation and 
declared that "an equipoise of influence in the halls of Congress" 
might be thus secured. It then proceeded to set forth the \dew of 
slavery that the state was coming to adopt and that was to form the 
basis of its fierce struggle in defense of this institution. The com- 
mittee declared: 

This system is cherished by our constitutents as the very palladium of their 
prosperity and happiness, and whatever ignorant fanatics may elsewhere conjecture, 
the committee are fully assured, upon the most diligent observation and reflection 
on the subject, that the South does not possess within her limits a blessing, with 
which the affections of her people are so closely entwined and so completely enfi- 

bered, and whose value is more highly appreciated To this system we 

owe more than we can well estimate of domestic comfort and social happiness.-* 

The people of the state were enthusiastically in favor of the policy 
recommended in this report and Robert J. Walker, Senator from Mis- 
sissippi, in becoming a leader in the movement for the annexation of 
Te.xas, fittingly reflected the will of his constitutents. By his famous 
letter advocating the " reannexation of Texas and the reoccupation of 
Oregon," he did much to make those measures the issue in the presi- 
dential campaign of 1844; and he contributed further to this end by 
assisting in the shrewd political manoeuvering that set aside Van Buren 
in the Democratic National Convention of 1844 and nominated Polk 
for president on that issue.^^ His constitutents approved his course 
by casting the electoral vote of the state for Polk. 

The annexation of Texas succeeded the election of Polk and the 
people of Mississippi, having contributed their share in bringing about 
both events, staunchly supported the administration of Polk in the 
war with Mexico that followed. They contributed more than their 
quota of troops, approved the conduct of the administration in carry- 
ing on the war,^" favored the acquisition of territory from Mexico as 
indemnity, and, without doubt, would have approved the policy 
of holding all Mexico urged upon the president by, at least, two of 
their fellow-citizens, Robert J. Walker, who had become Secretary of 
the Treasury and a most powerful factor in the Cabinet,^^ and John 



" House Journal, 1837, 158. 

*' Claiborne, Mississippi as a Province, Territory and State, I, 417-421. 
*" Resolutions of the Legislature of Mississippi on the Mexican War, April 20, 
1848. Senate Miscellaneous Documents, 30th Congress, ist Session, No. 126. 
" Polk, Diary, III, 229, November 23, 1847. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 15 

A. Quitman.32 g^^. ^jjg carrying out of this policy was prevented by 
the beginning of a greater struggle than the war with Mexico. 

When it became evident that the war would result in the expansion 
of the United States to the southwest the question of the extension of 
slavery into the region to be acquired was raised; and, as Calhoun and 
other leaders both North and South had foreseen, a fierce struggle 
between the two sections on the subject was precipitated. Mississippi 
was prepared by the course of its development to align itself with 
the other states of the South in defense of the extension of slavery; 
but it did not assume a leading part in the beginning of the struggle. 
For the leaders from Mississippi who were to play an important part 
in Congress in this crisis had not appeared in the twenty-ninth Con- 
gress; and, outside of Congress, Mississippi awaited the initiative of 
the older slaveholding states to which the South was accustomed to 
look for leadership. But to explain fully the part of Mississippi in 
the Compromise of 1850, a brief account of the beginning of the 
struggle over slavery m the territory acquired from Mexico is nec- 
essary. 



*2 Claiborne, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, II, 7-9. 



CHAPTER II. 

THE BEGINNINGS OF THE CONTROVERSY OVER SLAVERY AND OF THE 
SOUTHERN MOVEMENT. 

It had been understood by all that a war with Mexico would result 
in the expansion of the United States to the southwest and it had been 
recognized, with equal clearness, by many, that any acquisition of 
territory would precipitate a struggle between the two sections over 
the question of the extension of slavery. But the war was begun in 
spite of the opposition of those who feared its consequences and the 
struggle over slavery was not long delayed. 

August 8, 1846, there was introduced into the House a bill appro- 
priating two million dollars for the purpose of making peace with 
Mexico, which sum, it was very generally known, was to be used to 
further negotiations that had in view the cession of a large amount of 
territory to the United States. Accordingly, David Wilmot, of Penn- 
sylvania, offered an amendment to the bill providing that, as an 
express and fundamental condition to the acquisition of any territory 
from Mexico by the United States, slavery should be forever excluded 
from any part of it.^ An amendment to confine the operation of the 
proviso to the territory north of the line 36° 30' having been defeated, 
the proviso was adopted by a vote of 83 to 64 and the bill as amended 
passed the House.^ Although the proviso failed to reach a vote in the 
Senate because of the adjournment of Congress,' its passage by the 



' Coug. Globe, 29 Cong., i Sess., 1217. 

-Ibid., 1218. 

' Ibid., 1 220-1 2 21; Polk, Diary, II, 75-76. 

Polk characterized the proviso as "mischievous and foolish," and states that it 
" was voted on to the Bill by the opponents of the measure, and when voted on, the 
original friends of the Bill voted against it, but it was passed by the Whigs and 
Northern Democrats, who had been opposed to making the appropriation. In 
this form it had gone to the Senate. Had there been time, there is but little doubt 
the Senate would have struck out the slavery proviso and that the House would 
have concurred. Senator Davis however resorted to the disreputable expedient 
of sf)caking against time and thus prevented the Senate from acting upon it, until 
the hour of adjournment arrived." 

16 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 17 

House raised again the question of the extension of slavery, the dan- 
gerous possibilities of which had startled Jefferson in the days of the 
controversy over Missouri, and began the great sectional controversy 
over slavery that was to end in the realization of his worst fears. 

In the next session of Congress, the struggle between the sections 
over the extension of slavery was fairly joined. To a bill in the House 
appropriating three million dollars to be used to negotiate a treaty 
with Mexico, there was added, February 15, 1847, by a vote of 115 to 
106, an amendment, more sweeping than the original Wilmot proviso, 
prohibiting slavery in any territory that might be annexed to the 
United States in any way whatever.'* But an effort to attach the 
Wilmot proviso to a similar appropriation bill in the Senate was de- 
feated by the votes of all the senators from the Southern states, except 
John M. Clayton, of Delaware, and of five Northern Democrats.^ 
Although a motion of David Wilmot, in the House, in the committee 
of the whole, to attach the Wilmot proviso to this appropriation bill 
from the Senate, was carried by a vote of 90 to 80, the amendment 
was defeated in the House by the vote of the representatives of all the 
slaveholding states, except Delaware, and of twenty-three Northern 
Democrats;® and the Senate three miUion dollar bill was passed March 
3, 1847, by a vote of 115 to 81.'' With the passage of this bill, the 
struggle over the extension of slavery into Mexican territory was 
suspended until that territory should be actually acquired from 
Mexico. 

The struggle over the bills for this appropriation and the proposed 
amendments was ominously significant. In its course, all party lines 
among the members of Congress from the South were broken down 
and the effort to exclude slavery by the Wilmot proviso from the 
territory to be acquired from Mexico was resisted by the united 
strength of all the slaveholding states, except Delaware. Moreover, 
though the votes, in this struggle, of members of Congress from the 

* Cong. Globe, 29 Cong., 2 Sess., 424. 

A motion made by Douglas to confine the operation of the amendment to the 
temtor>' above the line 36° 30' north latitude failed by a vote of 82 to 109. 

* Ibid., 555, March i, 1847. 

The vote was 21 to 31. The five Northern Democrats who voted against the 
proviso were Breese, of Illinois, Bright and Hannigan, of Indiana, Cass, of Michigan, 
and Dickinson, of New York. 

^ Ibid., 573. The vote was 97 to 102. 

Ubid., 573. 



1 8 Mississippi Historical Society. 

free states were determined partly by party considerations and fac- 
tional strife within the Democratic party, yet they showed an alarm- 
ing tendency in the North to unite in opposition to the extension of 
slavery. Furthermore, the debates displayed a fully developed con- 
sciousness of sectional differences and revealed the forces at work 
that were to array section against section. 

The belief in the free states that slavery is a moral, religious, and 
social evil had been strengthened by the abolition agitation and other 
humanitarian and social movements of the time; and the opposition to 
the expansion of slavery was due, in part, to the unalterable determi- 
nation of many that its blighting influence should not be extended 
through the instrumentaUty of the general government of the United 
States.^ It was, also, partly due to a conviction that there was an 
inherent hostility between an economic system based on free labor 
and one based on slavery and a determination to preserve the terri- 
tory to be acquired by the United States for the expansion of free labor 
and the development of the industrial institutions of the free states.' 
Using these motives of opposition to the extension of slavery as a 
means, many of the leaders of the North worked to wrest political 
power from the slavehoiding states by uniting the majority against 
the minority section over the policy of the exclusion of slavery from 
the territories.^" 

In the controversy, the Southern delegates based their defense of 
slavery on the arguments that were to be maintained by the South 
throughout the struggle over slavery, namely, that the institution is 
sustained by the Bible and the constitution and is conducive to the 
welfare of society." But they, also, revealed that the people of the 
South were firmly convinced that their whole social order was irrevo- 
cably bound up with slavery and that anything that tended to under- 
mine the institution in a like measure tended to bring their section face 



* Speech of James Dixon, of Connecticut, February 9, 1847, Cong. Globe, 29 Cong., 
2 Sess., appx., ,-532; Speech of B. R. Wood, of New York, February 10, 1847. Ibid. 
342-345; Speech of J. R. Giddings, of Ohio, February 13, 1847, Ibid. 403-406. 

'Speech of David Wihnot, of Pennsylvania, February 8, 1847, Ibid., 314-318. 

" Speech of Ralhburn, of New York, February 9, 1847, Cong. Globe, 29 Cong., 
2 Sess., 364-356; Speech of Upham, of Vermont, March i, 1847, Ibid., 546-548. 

" Speech of Dobbin, of North CaroHna, February 11, 1847, Ibid., 383-386; Speech 
of Jones, of Georgia, February 13, 1847, /i/J., appx., 360-366. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 19 

to face with problems they dreaded more than any problem slavery 
could possibly present; and that, since the welfare and preserva- 
tion of the institution depended on the economic prosperity of the 
South, they were determined to provide for the future prosperity of 
their section by securing room for the expansion of slavery.*^ In 
addition, they disclosed that the South was moved by the desire to 
protect its peculiar institution from the growing influence of the aboli- 
tionists by acquiring additional territory for the extension of slavery 
from which it might derive, in the future, representation in the Senate 
to offset the representation that the opposition would acquire through 
the admission of new states from the territory already in the possession 
of the United States." 

But the momentous question raised in these debates was that of 
the power of Congress over slavery in the territories. The division 
of opinion, even among the Southern leaders, shows that definite views 
in regard to the vexed question had not been formed, at that time, by 
either section; but theories and policies were advocated, in these dis- 
cussions, that were to be of importance in the formation of the atti- 
tude of the two sections towards this question, which was finally to 
array them against each other. 

The doctrine that was accepted by the South as the basis of its 
theories on the subject was set forth in the House by Robert Barnwell 
Rhett, of South Carolina, in a close constitutional argument to prove 
that Congress had no power over slavery in the territories. Sover- 
eignty in the United States, according to Rhett, rested in the people 
of the states respectively and sovereignty over the territories was 
vested in the states jointly as tenants in common; therefore neither 
the federal government nor the states of the North could turn the 
Southern states out of their sovereignty over the territories and pre- 
vent their citizens from entering those territories with whatever was 
recognized as property by any state." 

1* Speech of Stephen Adams, of Mississippi, January 2, 1847, Cong. Globe, 29 
Cong., 2 Sess., appx., 142; Speech of T. H. Bayly, of Virginia, February 11, 1847, 
Ibid., 345-349- 

1' Speech of Calhoun, February 19, 1847, Cong. Globe, 29 Cong., 2 Sess., 454; 
speech of Kaufman, of Texas, February lo, 1847, Ibid., appx. 149-155. 

" Speech of Robert Barnwell Rhett, of South Carolina, on the Oregon territory 
bill, January 15, 1847, Cong. Globe, 29 Cong., 2 Sess., appx., 244-247. Though 
delivered on the Oregon bill, this speech was inspired by the Wilmot proviso. 



20 Mississippi Historical Society. 

With this doctrine of sovereignty as a basis, Calhoun formulated a 
series of resolutions which he presented to the Senate, February 19, 
1847. Although they did not come to a vote in that body, these reso- 
lutions formed a convenient statement of principles on which to rally 
the South and became of great importance as the first platform of that 
section in its struggle for the extension of slavery in the territories 
and as the basis of its whole future position in that contest. 

The resolutions declared that the territories of the United States 
belonged to the several states composing the Union, and were held by 
them as their joint and common property; that Congress, as the joint 
agent and representative of the states, had no right to make any law, 
or do any act whatever, that would directly, or by its effect, make any 
discrimination between the states of the Union by which any of them 
should be deprived of its full and equal right in any territory of the 
United States; and that the enactment of any law which should directly, 
or by its effect, deprive the citizens of any of the states from immigrat- 
ing with their property to any of the territories of the Unites States, 
would make such discrimination, and would, therefore, be a violation of 
the constitution and the rights of the states from which such citizens 
emigrated, and in derogation of that prefect equality which belonged 
to them as members of the Union, and would tend directly to subvert 
the Union itself. Finally, the resolutions asserted that it was a funda- 
mental principle of the political creed of the people of the United 
States that a people, in forming a constitution, have the unconditional 
right to form and adopt the government which they think best calcu- 
lated to secure their liberty, prosperity, and happiness; that, in con- 
formity thereto, no other condition is imposed by the federal consti- 
tution on a state, in order to be admitted into the Union, except that 
its constitution shall be republican; and that the imposition of any 
other condition by Congress would not only be in violation of the 
constitution, but in direct conflict with the principle on which the 
political system of the United States rests.'^ 

But members of Congress from the South, as well as from the free, 
states, showed, in these debates, a willingness to accept a solution of 
the question that yielded the principles asserted in these resolutions, 



" C ong. Globe, 29 Cong., 2 Sess., 455. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hear on. 21 

by advocating an extension of the line of the Missouri Compromise to 
the Pacific as the most satisfactory adjustment of the controversy.^^ 

Another solution of the question was suggested, which, developed 
as the doctrine of "squatter sovereignty," was to become of great 
importance in the struggle over the extension of slavery in the terri- 
tories. Leake, a representative from Virginia, declared in the House, 
February 17, 1847, that Southern men disclaimed the authority or 
power of the government to interfere to any extent whatever with the 
rights of slave property in any territory that might be acquired. 
"We maintain," he said, "that is a question to be left to the people of 
this territory to decide and with which the government cannot inter- 
fere, "i^ 

The members of Congress from the free states who opposed the Wil- 
mot proviso were not influenced, to any extent, by the doctrine of the 
lack of power in Congress to enact such a measure. Although they 
sincerely deplored the arraying of section against section and many of 
them, especially from the West, evinced an indifference to slavery, the 
main arguments they used to defeat the proviso were that it was unnec- 
essary, for slavery did not exist in the territory by virtue of the laws 
of Mexico and the existing laws would continue imtil changed by legis- 
lative enactment of the United States; that the attaching of such a 
provision to the appropriation bill would embarass the administration 
in the conduct of the war and result in the failure to acquire any terri- 
tory; and that the proper time for the raising of the question of the 
extension of slavery would be when the territory was acquired from 
Mexico and a government was to be organized for it.^^ 

That question would be raised again, the people of the North left 
no doubt. Public sentiment in that section became so opposed to the 
further extension of slavery that Democrats joined with Whigs in pro- 
nouncing in favor of the Wilmot proviso; and, one by one, legislatures 

'^ Cong. Globe, 29 Cong., 2 Sess., 362. 

Polk and his cabinet favored this compromise, Polk's Diary, II, 335; and even 
Calhoun was willing to acquiesce in it to preserve the peace of the Union. Ibid., 
454- 

" Cong. Globe, 29 Cong., 2 Sess., 444. In the beginning of the next session of 
Congress, this doctrine was reasserted by Dickinson of New York in a set of reso- 
lutions introduced into the Senate, December 14, 1848, Cong. Globe. 30 Cong., i 
Sess , 21 ; and on December 24, 1847, Cass in a letter to A. O. P. Nicholson, of Nash- 
ville, lent the strength of his support to it. Niles Register, LXXIII, 293. 

1* Speech of Cass, March i, 1847, Cong. Globe, 29 Cong., 2 Sess., 548-551. 



22 Mississippi Historical Society. 

of the free states passed resolutions demanding the exclusion of slavery 
as a condition precedent to any acquisition of territory by the United 
States.i^ Consequently the friends of the Wilmot proviso confidently 
looked forward to its passage in the next session of Congress."" 

The South was not slow in understanding the danger to its institu- 
tions in this growing unanimity of sentiment in the majority section 
in favor of the Wilmot proviso; and fully comprehended that, although, 
by united action, it had succeeded in forcing the removal of the pro- 
viso from ''the three milhon dollar bill," it had only postponed the 
question of the extension of slavery and that a fierce struggle lay before 
it on that issue when territory should have been actually acquired 
from Mexico. For success in that struggle, the Southern states under- 
stood that, since they were in the minority, it was necessary for them 
to unite on a definite program. Accordingly, March 8, 1847, the gen- 
eral assembly of Virginia set forth such a program and called upon the 
other slaveholding states to support it. 

In a series of resolutions, the Virginia assembly first denied that the 
government of the United States had any control, directly or mdirectly, 
over the institution of slavery; and, in accordance with the resolutions 
of Calhoun, asserted that the territory of the United States was the 
common property of the several states, in which each and all had 
equal rights, and that the enactment by the federal government of 
any law that should directly, or by its effects, prevent the citizens 
of any state from immigrating, with their property of whatever de- 
scription, into such territory would make a discrimination unwarranted 
by the constitution and in violation of its compromises and of the 
rights of the states from which such citizens emigrated, and in dero- 
gation of that prefect equality that belonged to the several states as 
members of the Union, and would tend directly to subvert the Union 
itself. 

The assembly then declared: 

That, if in disregard alike of the spirit and principles of the act of Congress on the 
admission of the State of Missouri into the Union, generally known as the Missouri 
Compromise, and of every consideration of justice, of constitutional right, and of 



" Von Hoist, Conslilutional History of the United States, III, 307. "The Legis- 
latures of Vermont, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Ohio, New Hamp- 
shire, New Jersey, Michigan, Massachusetts, and Connecticut demanded the exclu- 
sion of slavery as a condition precedent to all territorial acquisition. Delaware, 
too, instructed its senators to vote in this sense." 

'" Speech of Giddings, of Ohio, Cong. Globe, 29 Cong., 2 Sess., appx., 403-404. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 23 

iratemal feeling, the fearful issue shall be forced upon the country, which must 
result from the adoption and attempted enforcement of the Wilmot Proviso, as an 
act of the General Government, the people of Virginia can have no difficulty in 
choosing between the only alternatives that will remain, of abject submission to 
aggression and outrage on the one hand, or determined resistance on the other, at 
aU hazards and to the last extremity. 

Finally, the assembly asserted that it was the duty of every man in 
the confederacy to whom the Union was dear to oppose the passage of 
any law by which the territory to be acquired might be subject to the 
restriction contained in the Wilmot proviso, and resolved unanimously 
that the passage of the proviso would make it the duty of every slave- 
holding state, and all the citizens thereof, as they valued " their dearest 
privileges, their sovereignty, their independence, their rights of prop- 
erty, to take firm, united and concerted action in this emergency. "^^ 

These resolutions of Virginia met with speedy and wide spread 
approval throughout the South .^ The legislature of Mississippi was 
not in session in 1847 to give a formal expression of the position of 
that state on the question at issue between the sections; but Governor 
A. G. Brown, no doubt, reflected the views of his constitutents in the let- 
ter to Governor Smith, of Virginia, acknowledging the receipt of the res- 
olutions of the Virginia legislature. He expressed his approval of those 
resolutions and declared that they would meet a hearty response in 
Mississippi from both political parties.^ He asserted that the move- 
ments of New York and Pennsylvania, both in and out of congress, 
and the evident pandering of presidential aspirants to abolition, had 
dissipated the first feeling of confident expectation that abolition, like 
other heresies, would expire of its own excesses; and that there was 
in the South a calm, dispassionate determination, 

"first, to exhaust all the resources of reason and argument in exhorting our 

northern brethren to let us alone on this subject and if these fail 

then deplorable as may be the consequences, we feel prepared, having exhausted 
every fraternal remedy, to become enemies, and defend our rights with those means 
whidi God and nature have placed in our hands. If other men mill force this sad 
catastrophe upon us, it is our duty to watch its approach and be prepared to meet 
it. The South must be united."^* 

21 Niles Register, LXXV, 73. 

22 Resolutions of the Democratic State Convention of Alabama, May, 1847, 
Niles Register, LXXII, 179; Resolutions of the Democratic State Convention of 
Georgia, National Era, July 29, 1847. 

23 The Mississippian, the Democratic organ in the state capital, approved the 
Virginian resolutions and declared that Governor Brown had responded to them 
truly and nobly, for every Mississippian. National Era, May 27, 1847. 

** Letter from Governor Brown, of Mississippi, to Governor Smith, of Virginia, 
April IS, 1847. Niles Register, LXXII, 178. 



24 Mississippi Historical Society. 

Southerners, generally, agreed with Governor Brown, that union 
was necessary for the preservation of their interests, but there was a 
difference of opinion as to how this unanimity was to make itself effec- 
tive. Should Southern men remain in two great parties and seek to 
carry out their purpose through dominating those parties, or should 
they withdraw from their old party connections and form a new party 
on the issue of the extension of slavery. The approaching presiden- 
tial election made a decision necessary. 

Calhoun lent the support of his great influence to the latter policy 
and, on March 9, at a meeting of the citizens of Charleston to welcome 
him on his return from Congress, he set forth the necessity for the for- 
mation of a Southern party for the preservation of the peace and afety 
of the Union and of the rights of the South. He urged the people of 
his section to profit by the example of the abolition party, which, as 
small as it was, had acquired great influence by the course it had pur- 
sued; and, as the aboUtionists made the destruction of slavery their 
paramount issue, he asserted that Southerners should make its safety 
their chief concern and regard every man as of their party who stood 
up in its defense and every one against them who did not, until aggres- 
sion should cease. Only in thus taking an early and decided stand, 
while political ties were still strong, did he think that a rally of the 
sound and patriotic of the Union could be successfully made. As for 
the national conventions, he condemned them as instruments for 
coercing the abolitionists and the slaveholders into supporting the 
same candidates for president and urged Southerners to take no part 
in them.^* 

The movement for the formation of a Southern party, thus formally 
launched by Calhoun, met with some encouragement, at first. It was 
strongly supported by the Charleston Mercury^^ and received approval 
even outside of South Carolina.^^ The policy of not taking part in 
the national party conventions met with favor in both parties,^^ a 
Southern convention was advocated for the sake of united and effec- 
tive action in support of Southern interests in both the next session 

** Speech in Charleston, March 9, 1847, Calhoun, Works, IV, 393. 

** National Era, April i, 1847. 

^^ Ibid., April 15, 1847; Ibid., May 27, 1847. Quotations from the Southern 
Advocate, Huntsville, Alabama, and from another Alabama paper; Imd., July 15, 
1847. Quotation from the Macon (Georgia) Messenger. 

** National Era, August 12, 1847. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 25 

of Congress and the presidential election,^^ and a movement was begun 
to establish a newspaper in Washington as the organ of the slavery 
interests.^'' 

But in spite of Calhoun's confidence that the slavery question would 
break up the old party organizations'^ and his efforts to form a South- 
ern party^- the majority of the South, partly from political motives 
and the strength of party ties and partly from a sincere conviction 
that such a course was not the best for the protection of Southern 
interests, were not willing to break with the old parties.^' Likewise, 
in part from poUtical motives, but more from a belief that by united 
action the Southern delegates could force the national conventions to 
abandon the Wilmot proviso and to nominate, as candidates for the 
presidency, men opposed to that measure. Southerners generally came 
finally to favor the Southern states participating in the national con- 
ventions of the two great parties. 

A statement from Jefferson Davis as to the course Southern Demo 
crats should pursue in this crisis set forth the reasons that must have 
influenced many in his party in coming to this decision; and, also, out- 
lined the policy that, in his opinion, the Southern delegates should 
pursue in the National Democratic convention. He declared in a 
letter dated September 19, 1847, that the position that had been 
assumed in a majority of the non-slaveholding states had led him to 
fear that it might become necessary for Southern men to unite and, 
consequently, to dissolve the ties that had connected them with the 
Northern Democracy. Yet he was not one of those who decried a 
national convention, but he believed that the existing circumstances 
with more than usual force indicated the propriety of such a meeting. 
On the question of Southern institutions and Southern rights, it 
was true, he admitted, that extensive defections had occurred among 



" National Era, August 26, 1847; Niles Register, LXXIII, 127. 

'° Ibid., August 26, 1847. 

" Letter from Calhoun to T. G. Clemson, July 8, 1847, Calhoun Corresp., 735; 
Ibid., July 24, 1847, 736. 

'2 Polk, Diary, II, 4S7-458. 

" The Washington Union opposed the policy of Calhoun. It foresaw that if 
this policy were carried into effect, the Democratic party would be broken up and 
the system of slavery exposed to great peril. It believed that the only safety for 
Southern interests lay in maintaining the Democratic party intact and that that 
could be done only through the old pohcy of compromise. National Era, April 15, 
1847. 



26 Mississippi Historical Society. 

Northern Democrats; but enough of good feeling was still exhibited to 
sustain the hope that, as a party, they would show themselves worthy 
of their ancient appellation, the natural allies of the South, and would 
meet Southerners upon just constitutional ground. At least, he con- 
sidered it due to former association that Southern Democrats should 
give them the fairest opportunity to do so, and furnish no cause for 
their failure by seeming distrust or aversion. 

His suggestion was that the Southern delegates should meet those 
from the North 

not as a paramount object to nominate candidates for the Presidency and Vice- 
Presidency, but, before entering upon such selection, to demand of their polit- 
ical brethren of the North a disavowal of the principles of the Wilmot Proviso; an 
admission of the equal rights of the South with the North to the territory held as 
common property of the United States; and a declaration in favor of extending the 
Missouri compromise to all states to be hereafter admitted into our Confederacy. 

If these principles were recognized, Davis believed that the worst 
of all political divisions, one made merely by geographical lines, would 
be avoided; and that the convention, representing every section of the 
Union, and elevated above local jealousy and factional strife, might 
proceed to select candidates whose principles, patriotism, judgment, 
and decision would indicate men fit for the time and the occasion. 
But he declared that, if the spirit of hostility to the South, the thirst 
for political dominion over it that for two years had displayed such 
increased power and systematic purpose should prevail, it would only 
remain for the Southern delegates to withdraw from the convention, 
and inform their fellow citizens of the failure of their mission; and that 
the South would then have reached a point at which all party measures 
would, under the necessity for self preservation, sink into insignificance 
and at which party divisions should be buried in union for defense.'* 

Other Southern Democrats, before the meeting of the Democratic 
National Convention, were as outspoken as Jefferson Davis as to the 
demands that the South should make on the Democratic party as the 
condition of its support. Governor Brown, of Mississippi, declared 
that he was opposed to going into convention with the "Northern 
brethren" without a prior distinct understanding that the candidate 

"Letter from Jefferson Davis to J. C. Searles, September 19, 1847, quoted in the 
A'alional Era, November 4, 1847, from the Richmond Whig, with comments of the 
Whig indicating its concurrence in the general line of policy marked out by Davis. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 27 

selected should be not only sound on the Wilmot proviso but beyond 
the taint of suspicion; and that, in this, he thought he but echoed the 
common sentiment of Mississippi.^^ 
The Mississippian asserted: 

One thing is now absolutely certain — the Wihnot question is not to be brought 
into the next Democratic National Convention. For the sake of perfect fraternity 
we would prefer a Northern nominee; but then we must and will know beforehand 
that he is imtainted.'^ 

The members of the Democratic state convention of Alabama, in 
May, 1847, solemnly pledged themselves to one another to withhold 
their votes for the office of president of the United States from any 
citizen who should not previous to the election, distinctly, unequivo- 
cally, and publicly avow his opposition to all interference by the 
general government to establish a discrimination against the slave- 
holding states;'^ and the Democratic state convention of Georgia 
resolved that the Democratic party of Georgia would give its support 
to no man for the presidency who did not "unconditionally, clearly, 
and imequivocally declare his opposition to the principles and pro- 
visions of the Wilmot proviso."^^ Other conventions and public 
meetings^^ in the various parts of the South, also expressed the same 
determination and the Democratic press of the whole section supported 
it. 

But not all Democrats of the South were content with the position 
taken in the Virginia resolutions and with demanding the nomination 
of a candidate for president who was simply opposed to the Wilmot 
proviso. Under the spell of the fiery eloquence of William L. Yancey, 
the Democratic state convention of Alabama that met in February, 
1848, assumed a more advanced position. In a series of resolutions, 
destined to become famous as "the Alabama Platform," the conven- 
tion demanded that the treaty with Mexico should contain a clause 
securing an entry into the territory ceded to the United States by Mex- 
ico to all the citizens of the United States together with their property 

^^Niles Register, LXXII, 178. 

^^ Quotation from the Mississippian, National Era, May 27, 1847. 

*' Resolutions adopted by the Democratic state convention of Alabama, May, 
1847, Niles Register, LXXII, 179. 

^8 Resolutions of the Democratic state convention of Georgia, National Era, 
July 29, 1847. 

^^ National Era, May 20, 1847; May 27, 1847; July s, 1847; Niles Register, 
LXXIII, 127. 



28 Mississippi Historical Society. 

of every description and that the same should remain protected by the 
United States while the territory was under its authority; and denied 
that the people of a territory could "m other event than the forming 
of a State Constitution preparatory to admittance as a State into the 
Union" lawfully or constitutionally prevent any citizen of any 
state from removing to or settling in such territory with his property, 
were it slave property or any other kind. The convention, then, 
pledged itself to the country, and the members pledged themselves 
to one another, imder no poUtical necessity whatever to support for 
the offices of president and vice-president of the United States any 
person who was not openly and unequivocally opposed to either of 
the forms of excluding slavery from the territories mentioned in the 
resolutions, as being alike in violation of the constitution and of the 
just and equal rights of the citizens of the slaveholdmg states. Finally, 
the convention instructed the delegates from Alabama to the Balti- 
more convention to vote for no one for president or vice-president who 
would not unequivocally avow himself to be opposed to either of the 
forms of restricting slavery described in the resolutions.^'' Although 
the Alabama platform was endorsed by the Democratic state con- 
ventions of Florida and Virginia and praised by Democratic papers 
throughout the South,^ the majority of Southern Democrats, in 
1848, were not ready to advance to the position taken by it. But 
they, remained firmly fixed on the principles of the Virginia resolutions 
and in the determination to demand of the Democratic national con- 
vention the nomination of a candidate for the presidency who was 
opposed to the Wilmot proviso. 

The Whig party in the South showed an opposition to the proviso 
equal to that of the Democratic.*^ Governor Brown, of Mississippi, 
asserted there was no division of public sentiment on the subject in 
Mississippi.*' Both the Richmond Whig and the Mobile Advertiser 
declared that the Southern Whigs would abandon the party unless 
it abandoned the proviso.** But the Richmond Whig held up to 

*° Du Bose, The Life and Times of William Lowndes Yancey, 212-214. 

*'Ibid., 214. 

*^ Resolutions of the Whig state convention of Georgia and of the Whig conven- 
tion of the second congressional district of Alabama, National Era, August 12, 1847. 

« Niles Register, LXXII, 178. 

** Quotations from the Richmond Whig and the Mobile Daily Advertiser, National 
Era, December 9, 1847. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hear on. 29 

ridicule the pledge to vote for no candidate for president who was 
not opposed to the Wilmot proviso and declared that the inevitable 
result of such a course would be the election of the Wilmot proviso 
candidate. The only mode, it held, to avert the peril that threatened 
the rights of the South and the safety of the Union was to adopt the 
course recommended by Southern Whigs in Congress and avow the 
purpose of not taking any territory from Mexico.'*^ But, although 
this course was supported by many Whigs in both the North and the 
South,^^ it did not meet the approval of the majority in either section. 
Therefore, Southern Whigs used the opposition to the proviso to 
further the candidacy of General Taylor; and, as he was a Southern 
man and a slaveholder and had not been a party man, his candidacy 
met with the widespread approval in the South in both parties.^^ 

But the question of the extension of the slavery was not to be settled 
in the presidential campaign of 1848. For the leaders of the Whig 
and the Democratic parties in both sections, alarmed at the section- 
alizing tendency of the issue and fearing its effect on the existence both 
of the Union and of their parties, soon began to urge that the Wilmot 
proviso should not be made an issue of the presidential campaign. 
The success of their efforts is plainly registered in the proceedings of 
the national conventions of the two parties. 

The Democratic convention contented itself with nominating for 
president Cass, of Michigan, who was committed to the pohcy of non- 
interference by Congress with slavery in the territories,^^ and with 
denying, in its platform, the power of Congress to interfere mth the 
domestic institutions of the states and condemning all efforts to induce 
that body to interfere with questions of slavery as calculated to lead 
to most alarming and dangerous consequences.^^ These proceedings of 
the convention met the approval of all the delegates from Mississippi^" 
and of a majority of the delegates from the other Southern states; 

**iVc/iowaZ Era, August 12, 1847. 

<« Letter of Governor Brown, of Mississippi, to Governor Smith, of Virginia, April 
IS, 1847. Niks Register, UKXll, 178; Quotation from the Natchez Courier, National 
Era, August 26, 1847. 

^' National Era, July 15, 1847, August 12, 1847; August 26, 1847. 

" Letter from Lewis Cass to A. O. P. Nicholson, December 24, 1847, Niles Reg- 
ister, LXXIII, 293. 

«7&irf.,LXXIV, 326-329. 

*" A delegate from Mississippi placed Cass in nomination and the six votes of 
Mississippi, in the convention, were cast for him in each of the four ballots taken. 
Ibid., 327. 



3© Mississippi Historical Society. 

and an effort of the minority of the platform committee, under the 
leadership of Yancey, to secure the passage of a resolution asserting 
" That the doctrine of non-intervention with the rights of property of 
any portion of this Confederacy, be it in the States or in the Territories, 
by any other than the parties interested in the said rights is the true 
RepubUcan doctrine recognized by this body,"^^ was defeated by a 
vote of 36 to 216.^^ 

The Whig convention avoided the slavery issue even more com- 
pletely than the Democratic. It nominated Taylor for president, 
voted, by a large majority, to table a motion in favor of the Wilmot 
proviso, and adjourned without any declaration of principles.^^ 

But there were those, both North and South, who were unwilling 
to fall in with the poUcy of the two great parties in ignoring the 
slavery issue and who objected to both Cass and Taylor for president. 
In the North, this sentiment resulted in the formation of the Free Soil 
party, composed of representatives of those who were sincerely opposed 
to the extension of slavery in the territories and of the Barnburners, 
a discontented Democratic faction of New York. Though Calhoim, 
Yancey, and others of both parties, in the South, were not satisfied 
with the policy of ignoring in the presidential campaign the issue 
involved in the Wilmot proviso, the effort to form a new party in that 
section on the slavery question had spent itself before the meeting of 
the national conventions, and after some hesitation, especially in 
South Carolina, Southerners, generally, aligned themselves in support 
of either Cass or Taylor.^'* 

In the campaign, in Mississippi, as elsewhere in the South, the Whigs 
sought to ignore old party lines and present General Taylor as a na- 
tional hero, a no-party man, and a Southerner, who because of his birth, 
training, and interests would be true to the interests of the South.^^ 

*i Du Bose, The Life and Times of William Lowndes Yancey, 219; Niles Register, 
LXXIV, 348. The minority report was signed by W. L. Yancey, of Alabama, 
John C. M'Gehee, of Florida, and J. M. Commander, of South Carolina. 

" Niles Register, LXXIV, 349. 

The yeas were Marjdand, one; South Carolina, nine; Georgia, nine; Florida, 
three; Alabama, nine; Arkansas, three; Tennessee, one; Kentucky, one. 

" Ibid., 349, 354-358. 

^ New York Semi-weekly Tribune, August 25, 1848; August 28, 1848; December 
12, 1848; National Era, October 26, 1848; Du Bose, The Life and Times of William 
Lowndes Yancey, 222-229. 

" The Natchez Courier declared that General Taylor was "as safe as any man in 
the South. He was born in the South — raised in the South — his interests were en- 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 31 

They denoimced Cass as an abohtionist, using his own words against 
him/® and interpreted the Nicholson letter as asserting the right of 
the people of the territories to exclude slavery during the period of 
their territorial existence. The Democrats, however, insisted that 
the true interpretation was that the people of a territory had no power 
to admit or to exclude slavery until they were authorized to form a 
state constitution, and that when they had duly exercised such au- 
thority and asked for admission into the Union, it was not properly a 
subject of inquiry whether their constitution admitted or excluded 
slavery from the proposed state.^^ 

Jefferson Davis agreed with the Whigs in their interpretation of the 
Nicholson letter; yet, in spite of his opposition to the doctrine of 
"squatter sovereignty" and of his being a son-in-law of Taylor, he 
supported Cass.*^ He gave as his reasons for doing so, that he believed 
that Cass would veto the Wilmot proviso or any other law that Con- 
gress might pass to prohibit slavery in the territories;^^ that, although 
neither party was fully with the South, so far as fraternal feeling was 
manifested by the non-slaveholding states, it was found in the Demo- 
cratic party ;®° and that, if Cass were elected, he would be surrounded 
with Democratic counselors and would, in the main, administer the 
government according to Democratic principles and policy.®^ Or, in 

tirely identified with Southern interests — his closest sympathies and earliest recol- 
lections are all entwined around Southern institutions — his family, fortune, first 
and oldest friends, all bound up in the South — are all sure guarantees that he will be 
true to the land that gave him birth — as true as the magnet to the pole." It assured 
the people of Mississippi that it did not have the slightest doubt but that "Old 
Zack" was as much opposed to the "infamous proposition of that leading Loco-foco 
of Pennsylvania, Wilraot" as any man in the state. Quotation from the Natchez 
Courier (Whig), National Era, August 26, 1847. 

^^The Natchez Courier, October 24, 1848, quoted Cass as saying: "We are no 
slaveholders. We never have been. We never shall be. We depreciate its exist- 
ence in principle and pray for its obliteration everywhere when it can be effected 
justly, peaceably, and easily for both parties." 

" Speech of A. G. Brown in the House of Representatives, February 12, 1850, 
Clusky, Speeches, Messages and Other Writings of Hon. Albert G. Brown, 177; Letter 
from Jefferson Davis to Barksdale and Jones, December 27, 1851, The Washington 
Union, March 18, 1852; Speech of Davis, February 20, 1850, Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., 
I Sess., 401. 

^^ Letter from Jefferson Davis to the people of Mississippi, January 26, 1852, 
Mississippi Free Trader, February 11, 1852. 

^'Letter from Jefferson Davis to Barksdale and Jones, December 27, 1851, 
Washington Union, March 18, 1852. 

^^ Letter from Davis declining to speak at Cold Springs, Mississippi, October 14, 
1848. Mississippi Free Trader, October 26, 1848. 

"Letter from Jefferson Davis to Barksdale and Jones, December 27, 1851, 
Washington Union, March 18, 1852. 



32 Mississippi Historical Society. 

other words, Davis supported Cass, in spite of his attitude toward the 
extension of slavery in the territories, because he was the nominee of 
the Democratic party and because Davis trusted in the power of the 
South to control that party and to dominate the government under a 
Democratic administration. 

Not all the people of the South, however, saw with Davis's clear- 
ness of vision that it would be safer to commit their interests to a party, 
the organization and pohtical machinery of which were well developed 
and under the control of the Southern leaders, rather than to a man, 
who, although a Southerner, had committed himself to no definite pol- 
icy and was without political experience. Accordingly, a majority of 
both the popular and the electoral votes of the South were cast for 
Taylor and his success in the election was thus assured. 

Taylor's carrying eight slave states and seven free states and Cass's 
carrying eleven slave states and eight free states proclaimed that the 
Democratic and the Whig leaders were successful, in this campaign, 
in preventing the Wilmot proviso from destroying the national char- 
acter of their parties. Nevertheless the issue raised by that measure 
was not dormant during the course of the contest for the presidency. 
For it was raised again in the thirtieth Congress in connection with 
the bill for the organization of a territorial government for Oregon; 
and, when, on July 6, 1848, the president announced to Congress the 
ratification of the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo and it became neces- 
sary for that body to organize territorial governments for the lands 
ceded in the treaty by Mexico to the United States, members of Con- 
gress threw themselves into the struggle over the extension of slavery 
into those territories with the determination to carry out the will of 
their respective sections. 

In the thirtieth Congress, the men from Mississippi appeared who, 
with one exception, were to represent the state in that body through- 
out the crisis over the extension of slavery in the territory acquired 
from Mexico. In the Senate, were Jefferson Davis and Henry S. Foote. 
Fresh from his military triumphs in Mexico and sincerely devoted to 
the promotion of the welfare of his section and the protection of the 
rights of property in slaves, Davis held the confidence of his state and 
was well fitted to become the leader of the South in its struggle in 
defense of slavery when its greater leader, John C. Calhoun, should 
have passed away. Foote, lacking Davis's singleness of purpose and 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. $$ 

consistency of character, had won his position of leadership in Missis- 
sippi by his matchless ability as a campaign orator and his resource- 
fulness as a party leader. Although his speech and conduct were often 
lacking in the dignity appropriate to the Senate, his willingness to 
yield more to the demands of the North in regard to slavery than were 
his colleagues, and his skill as a pohtical manager enabled him to 
play an important part in this crisis. 

In the House, A. G. Brown was the most able of the Mississippi 
delegation and was destined to become, after Davis, the most influ- 
ential leader from Mississippi in the slavery controversy. His pohti- 
cal career had been remarkable. In 1835, ^^ the first election after 
he was twenty-one years old, he had been elected to the legislature 
and since then he had been successively member of Congress, judge of 
the circuit court, and governor of the state. In 1847, before his sec- 
ond term as governor had expired, he had been elected to Congress 
from the fourth congressional district without opposition, although 
his constituents knew he would be prevented by his duties as governor 
from taking his seat in Congress until two months after the opening 
of the session. Himself reared in poverty, Brown was, during his 
whole career, in sympathy with the poorer classes. Although he repre- 
sented in Congress a district that included rich black counties on the 
Mississippi river, with aristocratic Natchez as a center, as well as 
barren "piney woods" and seashore counties in the east, and lived in 
Copiah, which during this period was becoming more and more pros- 
perous, he was the faithful spokesman of the small slaveholders and 
the non-slaveholders among his constituents. This made him an 
interesting contrast to Jefferson Davis, who, from disposition and 
position, represented the planting element in the Democratic party. 
Reflecting the sentiments of the classes for which he spoke. Brown was 
more outspoken in his views and more radical in the measures he advo- 
cated than Davis. In 1847, ^^ governor, he had taken a strong posi- 
tion in favor of the protection of the rights of the South and he entered 
the thirtieth Congress prepared to support his views on that question. 

Of the other members of the House, Jacob Thompson, who had 
served in Congress since 1839, and Winfield S. Featherston, were impor- 
tant Democratic leaders in the northern part of the state and staunchly 
supported Southern interests during this crisis. Patrick W. Tonip- 
kins, the one Whig among the Mississippi delegates in Congress, stood 



24 Mississippi Historical Society. 

with his Democratic colleagues on all the measures proposed, during 
this Congress, for the protection of Southern rights; but he was des- 
tined to go down in the general defeat of his party in Mississippi, in 
1849, on the slavery issue, and to have his seat taken in the thirty-first 
Congress by William McWillie, a Democrat. 

These representatives from Mississippi, when they appeared in the 
thirtieth Congress, found the settlement of the issue of the exten- 
sion of slavery in the territory acquired from Mexico complicated by 
the question of the organization of a territorial government for Oregon. 
For although the advocates of the extension of slavery admitted that 
the institution was not likely to be extended into Oregon, they sought 
to obtain from the North, as the condition of the consent of the South 
to the exclusion of slavery from Oregon, the extension of the Missouri 
compromise line to the Pacific; and in the last session of the twenty- 
ninth Congress had succeeded in tabling in the Senate a bill that had 
passed the House for the organization of Oregon with the exclusion 
of slavery .^2 

Therefore, in accordance with this policy, the senators and repre- 
sentatives from Mississippi, together with those from the other South- 
ern states, with only a few exceptions, supported, in the first session 
of the thirtieth Congress, both the efforts of President Polk to settle 
the whole question of the extension of slavery by securing an amend- 
ment to the Oregon bill extending the Missouri compromise line to 
the Pacific;^ and also the plan of the Senate to adjust that question 
through the Clayton compromise, which recognized the exclusion of 
slavery from Oregon, and provided for the settlement of that question 
in New Mexico and California by prohibiting the territorial legislature 
from passing laws relative to slavery and referring the final decision 
of the status of slavery in these territories to the Supreme Court of the 
United States by providing for an appeal from the territorial courts to 
that court.^* But both tliese measures were defeated in the House; 



** Cong. Globe, 29 Cong., 2 Sess., 571. 

"Polk, Diary, III, 501-503; 504-505; IV, 13. 

In conjunction with Foote and Bright, of Indiana, Polk drew up the amendment 
to the Oregon bill providing for the extension of the Missouri compromise line to the 
Pacific that was introduced into the Senate by Bright, June 27, 1848. He also 
held interviews with members of both houses of Congress to secure their support 
for the amendment. 

''' Cong. Globe, 30 Cong., 1 Sess., 1002-1005. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hear on. 35 

and the Senate, at length, the day before Congress adjourned, gave up 
its efforts to settle the question of the extension of slavery in the terri- 
tory acquired from Mexico in providing a territorial government for 
Oregon, and passed the bill from the House for the organization of 
Oregon with the exclusion of slavery by the application of the restric- 
tions of the Northwest ordinance .^^ 

This struggle in Congress drew the lines more sharply between the 
two sections, in regard to slavery. Therefore, though the election 
of Taylor was hailed with rejoicing in the Southern states as evidence 
of the desire of the North to do justice to the South ,^^ the more thought- 
ful, remembering the recent refusal of the North in Congress to yield 
anything to the demands of the South, were not deceived into think- 
ing that in choosing a Southern slaveholder as president the North 
was expressing a willingness to give up the Wilmot proviso. But by 
the unanimity of action on the part of the members of Congress from 
the slaveholding states in seeking to enforce the demands of their 
section, they were encouraged to believe that the South could be 
united, for the struggle they saw before it, on a definite policy con- 
cerning the extension of slavery in the territories. 

Accordingly Callioun, whose dominant purpose since the days of 
the nullification controversy had been the uniting of the South for the 
protection of its interests, as soon as he saw that it was impossible to 
form a Southern party in the election of 1848, used his influence to 
persuade the people of South Carolina to act with moderation in 
the presidential campaign so as not to permit the result to estrange 
them in order that they might be united at its close." 

South Carolina responded to his influence and, before the campaign 
was over, was moving to formulate a definite plan of action in opposi- 
tion to the Wilmot proviso. Through various public meetings and 
the press, the legislature was urged to declare that the line of 36° 30' 
was the utmost concession that the South should make and that, if 
the Wilmot proviso were passed, the senators and representatives of 
South Carolina should return home and the legislature be convened 

^* Cong. Globe, 30 Cong., i Sess., 1078. 

^Quotation from the Savannah Reptiblican, National Intelligencer, November 
30, 1848; Inaugural address of Thomas Brown, Whig governor of Florida, January 
13, 1849, Niles Register, LXXV, 108. 

" Speech of Calhoun in Charleston, August 19, 1848, New York Semi-weekly 
Tribune, August 28, 1848. 



,6 Mississippi Historical Society. 

to adopt such measures as the exigencies should demand.®^ But 
South Carolina, together with Calhoun, had learned in the nullifica- 
tion conflict, the futility of independent action; and so her leaders, 
convinced that any action of South Carolina, to be effective, must be 
a part of a general movement of all the slave states,"^ sent out from 
Charleston in November a circular suggesting a convention of the 
slaveholding states and inviting the cooperation and coimsel of all. 

The sentiment in South Carolina with reference to the course to be 
pursued in regard to the Wilmot proviso met with approval in Missis- 
sippi.^" But there, as elsewhere in the South, the Whigs were unwilling 
to jeopardize the recent victory of their party without further provo- 
cation; and public opinion was not yet prepared for action. The 
people of the state, however, were convinced of the necessity of the 
union of the slave states. 

But the difference the people of Mississippi feared at this time more 
than all the differences with reference to parties or the course to be 
pursued by the South, was the growing difference between the border 
states and the cotton states with reference to slavery. The material 
interests of Delaware had already detached it from the South and 
grave fears were entertained that the interests of Maryland, Virginia, 
Kentucky, Missouri, and even Tennessee might detach them also. 
Through the press and public meetings, it was represented that because 
of the uncertain tenure, due to the recent agitation, by which slaves 
were held in Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri, these 
states were throwing an immense black population into the extreme 
Southern states and that, as soon as they had sold a sufi&cient 
number of slaves to make it profitable, they would abolish slavery. 
As a consequence the cotton states, weakened by the defection of the 
old border states and a dangerously increased negro population, would 
have to meet the issues connected with slavery as border states. This 
alarm was intensified by efforts in the border states to call conventions 
to manumit their slaves. To force the border states to retain their 
slaves and to stand between the cotton states and the fanatics of the 

•BJVew York Tribune, November 7, 1848, and March 10, 1848; National Intelli- 
gencer, December 16, 1848; Niles Register, LXXIV, 332. 

»* Message of Governor Johnson to the legislature, November 27, 1848, Niles 
Register, LXXIV, s6&; Letter from H. W. Conner to Calhoun, November 2, 1848, 
Calhoun Corresp., 1184. 

'" Mississippi Free Trader, December 5, 1848. 



Mississippi and tiie Compromise of 1850 — Hear on. 37 

North, the cotton states were urged to adopt effective laws forbidding 
the importation of slaves into their borders for sale.^^ So great was 
felt to be the importance of immediate action, the governor of Missis- 
sippi was urged to convene the legislature in a special session to con- 
sider the prohibition of the inter-state slave trade. ^^ 

This uneasiness on the part of Mississippi and the other cotton 
states as to the growing tendency in the border states to get rid of 
their slaves strengthened their desire for the extension of slavery into 
the territory acquired from Mexico and for the speedy settlement of 
that issue. Accordingly, when Congress met in December 1848, the 
Southern members were more united than ever before in their determi- 
nation to effect a decision of the question satisfactory to them. The 
necessity for providing territorial governments for New Mexico and 
California was, also, pressing, and the president, in his message of 
December, 1848, urged Congress to make provision for the organi- 
zation of governments in those possessions. Therefore, the agitation 
over slavery was immediately renewed in Congress with increased 
vigor and determination. 

The radical difference between the Senate and the House on the 
subject was soon made manifest. All reference to slavery was care- 
fully excluded from the bills introduced into the Senate concerning 
California and New Mexico; but the House, on December 13, in- 
structed the committee on territories to report, with as little delay as 
possible, a bill or bills providing territorial government for each of the 
territories of New Mexico and California and excluding slavery there- 
from.''^ 

Earlier in the same day, the question concerning slavery and the 
slave trade in the District of Columbia was injected into the struggle 
between the two sections by the request of John G. Palfrey, of Massa- 
chusetts, for the permission of the House to introduce a bill to repeal 
all congressional legislation establishing or maintaining slavery in the 
District of Columbia.^* The permission of the House was refused 

''^Natchez Courier, December 12, 1848; Mississippi Free Trader, November 30, 
1848. 

^2 Proceedings of a meeting in Madison county, Mississippi Free Trader, January 
31, 1849. 

" Cong. Globe, 30 Cong., 2 Sess., 39. 

Root of Ohio offered the resolution and it was adopted by a vote of 106 to 80. 

'^ Ibid., 38. 



,8 Mississippi Historical Society. 

Palfrey; but December i8, Giddings, of Ohio, succeeded in introducing 
a bill authorizing the people of the District to vote on the question of 
the continuance of slavery therein.^^ This bill, however, was laid on 
the table when the information was elicited from its author by Tomp- 
kins, of Mississippi, that slaves might participate in the voteJ^ But 
three days later a resolution introduced by Gott, of New York, in- 
structing the committee for the District of Columbia to report a bill 
prohibiting the slave trade in the district was passed by a vote of 98 
to 88." 

The Southern delegates in Congress were thoroughly alarmed by 
the course of the House in regard to slavery and the growing strength 
of the abolition sentiment in the North and many of them were con- 
vinced that prompt and vigorous measures on the part of the Southern 
representatives in Congress were necessary to check the proposed 
aggression on their rights.^^ Accordingly a meeting was called of 
the members of Congress from the slaveholding states, on the day 
succeeding that of the passage of Gott's resolution, to formulate a 
definite plan of action and secure for it the united support of all the 
Southern delegates -^athout reference to party. Many of the Whigs, 
however, disapproved of this Southern movement from the beginning 

'^ Cong. Globe, 30 Cong., 2 Sess., 55. 

^Ubid., 56. 

" Ibid., 84. 

'8 A letter from J. H. Harmanson, a Democratic representative from Louisiana 
to J. F. H. Claiborne reveals, more clearly than official documents, this alarm and 
the sentiment among the Southern members of Congress that produced the South- 
em movement. He wrote that abolition was carrying everything before it in 
Washington and asserted that, if the South vacillated or yielded in the least, it 
would lose all, and its fate would be the fate of Ireland or, perhaps, of San Domingo, 
but that, if it remained firm and let the Northerners know that it would be their 
equal or their foe and would contend to the last extremity for its constitutional 
rights, the Northerners would hesitate and abandon their traitorous violation of the 
constitution. He asked Claiborne to use his pen to arouse the people of the South 
to their danger and their dut3\ "The Northern Whigs,'' he declared, "are much 
frightened at their position. But are so connected with the abolitionists that they 
cannot shake them o£f without the Union should be the issue. If they believe the 
South will submit they will ur^e Taylor to go with them. If it is clear that the 
South will resist Taylor will be with us and all the leaders of the Whig party will 
sustain him, his position and theirs will depend on the South. I understood yes- 
terday that Bell said two weeks ago Taylor would have signed the Wilmot proviso. 
Xow he thinks he would not do it. The Northern familiar will force him on to rob 
u? of our rit^hts. He will be on the side of the South if we are true to ourselves. 
We will unite the South and divide the North and save the South and the consti- 
tution.'' J. H. Harmanson to J. F. H. Claiborne, Washington, December 24, 1S48, 
Claiborne Papers, State Archives, Jackson, Mississippi. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 39 

and entered the meetings only to block it.''^ For they feared the move- 
ment might disrupt the Whig party and they had no intention of 
forfeiting the results of the recent victory of their party and jeopard- 
izing the success of Taylor's incoming administration. They, there- 
fore, asserted that any movement looking to sectional combination 
and to resistance was a step toward the dissolution of the Union and 
ought not to be countenanced, and declared that they would stand by 
the government until it committed an overt act of aggression upon 
their rights.^" 

But in spite of the vehement opposition of the Whigs, both in the 
committees and in the meetings of the Southern members of Congress, ^^ 
and of the influence of the Democratic president,^^ " The Address of 
the Southern Delegation in Congress to their Constituents," dravra up 
by Calhoun, was finally adopted in a slightly modified form. The 
effectiveness of the opposition, however, was such that only forty- 
eight of the one hundred and ten members of Congress from the 
slaveholding states affixed their signatures to the document.^ The 
fact that only two Whigs signed the Address and many Democrats 
refused to sign is proof that the majority of the Southern members 
of Congress were not yet comdnced that the interests of the South 
demanded the breaking of party ties and the formation of a Southern 
party. 

With the exception of South Carolina, Mississippi was the only 
state whose representatives gave their united support to the Southern 
movement. Senator Foote took an active part in calling the initial 
meeting^ and, together with Jefferson Davis, ably supported Calhoun, 
who was the dominant force in the whole movement. The Address 
was signed by all the members of Congress from Mississippi, even by 
Patrick W. Tompkins, the one Whig representative, sectional interests 
proving stronger with him than those of party. *^ 

'9 Letter from Toombs to Crittenden January 22, 1849, Coleman, The Life of 
John J. Crittenden, I, 335-336- 

*" Letter from Toombs to Crittenden, January 22, 1849, Coleman, Ihid., Mis- 
sissippi Free Trader, January 31, 1849. 

81 Ihid.; Niles Register, LXXV, 84-88; 101-104, 

** Polk, Diary, January 17, 1849, IV, 289. 

83 Calhovm, Works, VI, 312-313. Only two Whigs signed the address; Gayle, of 
Alabama, and Tompkins, of Mississippi. 

^ Polk, Diary, December 22, 1848, IV, 249; Cong. Globe, 30 Cong., 2 Sess., appx., 
264; Letter of Foote to Henry A. Wise of Virginia, June 23, 1849. National Intelli- 
gencer, Jime 28, 1849. 

" Calhoim, Works, VI, 312-313. 



40 Mississippi Historical Society. 

The Southern Address is a cautious and moderate statement of the 
Southern position, for the object of Calhoun in issuing it was to unite 
in defense of the interests of the South men of different poHtical 
parties and of great diversity of opinion as to the course the South 
should pursue in the crisis facing it. The Address gave an account 
of the series of aggressions and encroachments on the rights of the 
South and pointed out the dangers that threatened that section and 
the whole body politic. It charged the North with violating the 
constitution in refusing to return fugitive slaves and in withholding 
from the South equal rights in the territories; denied to Congress all 
jurisdiction over slavery; and warned the people of the slaveholding 
states that, if the North succeeded in excluding them from the terri- 
tories, the results would be the aboHtion of slavery by a constitutional 
enactment and the complete reversal of the relation between the 
whites and the negroes in the South. But as to what should be done, 
the Address declared that belonged to the people of the South to decide 
and recommended only that the South should be united. ^^ 

But while motives of party were working to bring to nought the 
Southern movement in Washington, the Southern states were taking 
alarm at the threatened legislation in Congress, and lent their aid to 
further the movement to unite the South in defense of slavery. The 
legislature of South Carolina resolved unanimously that the time for 
discussion by the slaveholding states, as to their exclusion from the 
territory recently acquired from Mexico, had ceased, and that South 
Carolina was prepared to cooperate with her sister states in resisting, 
at any and every hazard, the application of the principles of the Wilmot 
proviso to such territory. ^^ 

Of far more weight and importance in the Southern movement, 
however, was the action of the general assembly of Virginia. January 
20, 1849, that body passed a series of resolutions reaffirming its resolu- 
tions of March 8, 1847, and, in addition, resolving that the passage of 
a law by Congress abolishing slavery or the slave trade in the District 

" Calhoun, Works, VI, 285-312. 

The failure of the address to recommend a Southern convention was no doubt 
due to the fact that it was well understood that it would be impossible to secure the 
api)roval of a majority of the Southern members of Congress and also to the fact 
that Calhoun wished such a movement to originate not in Congress, but in the 
states themselves. 

*' Mississippi Free Trader, January 6, 1849; Cong. Globe, 30 Cong., 2 Sess., 456. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 41 

of Columbia would be regarded as a direct attack upon the institu- 
tions of the Southern States, to be resisted at every hazard, and re- 
questing the governor of the state to convene the legislature to consider 
modes and measures of redress in the event of the passage by Congress 
of the Wilmot proviso or any law abolishing slavery or the slave trade 
in the District of Columbia.^* Whatever were the motives of the mem- 
bers of the Virginia assembly in passing these resolutions, they had 
behind them the weight of the power and conservatism of Virginia 
and became a factor in the Southern movement hardly second to the 
Southern Address.*^ 

But before the passage of the Virginia resolutions, the Southern 
movement had had some effect on the action of Congress; for on Janu- 
ary 10, 1849, Gott's resolution was reconsidered and dissappeared 
from the calender. But the South, bitterly resenting the efforts of 
the opponents of slavery to exclude the institution from the District 
of Columbia, had contributed its part to increasing the slavery agi- 
tation by raising an issue that was to prove one of the most effective 
in producing a sectional alignment against slavery. On January 10, 
when Gott's resolution was considered in the House, Meade, of Vir- 
ginia, offered an amendment instructing the committee for the District 
to report a bill "more effectually to enable owners to recover their 
slaves escaping from one state to another. "^° Though the amendment 
was ruled out of order, the issue was raised and the South was prepared 
to insist on the redress of this grievance. The discord between the 
sections was also increased by a sharp debate in the House on a bill, 
reported, January 31, from the committee of the District of Columbia, 
prohibiting the importation of slaves into the district for sale or hire. 

Finally, before Congress adjourned, the agitation over the slavery 
issues was increased and the bitterness between the sections intensi- 
fied by a trial of strength between the Southern interests in the Senate 

88 Niks Register, LXXV, 73; Cong. Globe, 30 Congress, 2 Sess., 441. 

*' R. K. Crall6 wrote to Calhoun July 25, 1849, "The course of the last Legis- 
lature was, I fear, a mere ruse de guerre, a manouvre of Party. Neither Party 
acted in good faith; and neither I fear will venture to come to the principles avowed 
in the Resolutions. Indeed, had the action on the Resolutions been postponed 
until after the result of the meeting in Washington was known, I am sure they would 
not have received the votes of a dozen Whigs. On the other hand the design of 
the Democrats was to force their opponents into a false position, while they covered 
their own past treachery to the South." Calhoun Corresp., 1 199-1202. 

'" Cong. Globe, 30 Cong., 2 Sess., 216. 



A2 Mississippi Historical Society. 

and those of the North in the House. On February 20, the Senate 
adopted, by a vote of 29 to 27, an amendment, offered to the general 
appropriation bill by Walker, of Wisconsin, extending the constitution 
of the United States to the territories acquired from Mexico.^^ The 
House, February 27, passed, by a vote of 126 to 87, a bill for the or- 
ganization of a territorial government in CaHfornia excluding slavery .'^ 
The Senate promptly referred the bill from the House to the committee 
on territories where it was safely pigeon-holed^^ and the House, on its 
part, March 2, 1849, rejected the Walker amendment by a vote of 114 
to 100.^^ As this amendment was attached to the general appropria- 
tion bill, there were scenes of great excitement in Congress. The House 
however, remained firm and the Senate, finally, several hours after the 
session of Congress had technically closed, receded from its position 
and passed the appropriation bill witliout the amendment. 

The thirtieth Congress then came to an end without having taken 
any positive action in regard to the slavery issues that had been 
raised during its sessions. The angry debates, however, and the 
fierce struggles that had taken place during its course had thoroughly 
aroused the people of the two sections in regard to those issues. The 
legislatures of the Northern states, one after another^^ passed reso- 
lutions declaring that Congress possessed the power to prohibit slavery 
in the territories and that it was its duty to exercise that power ;»* 
and many of them instructed theu* Senators and requested their 
representatives to exert their influence for the abolition of slavery 
and the slave trade in the District of Columbia." 

The people of the South were even more thoroughly aroused than 
those of the North. The Southern movement had, no doubt, been 
begun in Congress by Calhoun and other leaders from a sincere con- 
viction that united resistance on the part of the South was necessary 
to save its interests, and the response to it indicates that this convic- 
tion was strong in the slaveholding statfes. The fact that the Whigs, 

^1 Cong. Globe, 30 Cong., 2 Sess., 561. 

« Ibid., 609. 

"76i(/., 612. 

^' Ibid., 664. 

" With the exception of Iowa. Instructions to the members of Congress to vote 
for the Wilmot proviso passed the Senate of that state, but were laid on the table in 
the House. 

" New York Tribune, July 23, 1849. 

•' Niks Register, LXXV, 190, 191, 378, 399. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hear an. 43 

from party considerations, were induced to hold back in the move- 
ment gave the Democratic leaders an opportunity to make out of it 
party capital; but as the feeling in the South developed in intensity, 
the Whigs were drawn more and more into the movement either from 
sympathy or poHcy. This blotting out of party lines by sectional 
interest was aided, first, by the dissatisfaction of Southern Whigs with 
the cabinet formed by President Taylor and, later, by their percep- 
tion that Taylor was falhng more and more under the influence of 
Seward. 

The border states shared the general alarm of the South and the 
growth of sentiment for the united action of the slaveholding states, 
following the Southern Address and the resolutions of the Virginia 
legislature, is well illustrated in Missouri. February 27, 1849, the 
legislature of that state rejected resolutions thanking Atchison for 
his course in Washington and approving the Southern Address;^^ but 
a few weeks later the same body passed resolutions denying Congress 
the power to legislate on the subject of slavery so as to affect the insti- 
tution in the states, in the District of Columbia, or in the territories 
and pledging Missouri to a hearty cooperation with the other slave- 
holding states m such measures as might be deemed necessary for 
their protection against the encroachments of Northern fanatics. ^^ 

In Tennessee, the Democratic state convention in its address to 
the voters of the state asserted that "The encroachments of our North- 
ern brethren have reached a point where forbearance on our part 
ceases to be a virtue" and, while expressly disclaiming all threats of 
either nullification or secession, declared that it had become "the duty 
of all Southern men, without regard to party distinctions, to deliber- 
ate and determine upon the true and safe Hne of policy to be adopted."^''" 

In Kentucky, the controversy raged around the emancipation of 
slaves in the constitutional convention to assemble in October of that 
year. The question was made an issue in every coimty; and not one 
delegate favoring emancipation was elected to the convention. 

In the cotton states, where necessity for action was more deeply 
felt, the Southern Address met with widespread approval and the 
Virginia resolutions were ever)^where endorsed. South Carolina was, 

»8 New York Semi-weekly Tribune, March 21, 1849. 
^^Niles Register, LXXV, 270, April 25, 1849. 
^o°Ibid., 374. 



44 Mississippi Historical Society. 

of course, in advance of the other states and more ready for action. 
It was declared: 

The activity of this remarkable state reminds one of the times of nullification. 
Every district has its meetings and a committee of vigilance and safety. 

The journals were full of fight and, though devoted to free trade, 
were insisting on non-intercourse with the North and saying that the 
Union was already dissolved.^"^ The committees of vigilance of the 
districts and parishes throughout South Carolina held a state conven- 
tion at Columbia on the fourteenth and fifteenth of May, in which 
resolutions were adopted approving the Southern Address, concur- 
ring in the Virginia resolutions, and requesting the governor to call 
a session of the legislature in the event of the passage of the Wilmot 
proviso or an act prohibiting slavery or the slave trade in the Dis- 
trict of Columbia; and in which a central committee of vigilance 
and safety was appointed, and the districts and parishes were urged 
to keep up and perfect their organizations.^''^ 

In Alabama, almost all the southern counties responded to the 
Southern Address without distinction of party, but north Alabama 
was much slower in action.^"^ The Democratic state convention 
passed resolutions reaffirming the Virginia resolutions and approving 
the course of the members of Congress who put forth the Southern 
Address.^"^ In Georgia, there was great excitement over the slavery 
question. The Democratic state convention adopted unanimously 
the Virginia resolutions and denied the power of Congress to ratify 
any act of a territorial legislature estabhshing or prohibiting slavery; 
but for the sake of harmony, it did not touch the Southern Address.^"* 

In the meantime, Mississippi was as thoroughly alarmed and aroused 
as the other Southern states and was preparing to take its part in 
the Southern movement. 



"1 National Era, April 26, 1849. 

^"^ Ibid., May 24, 1849; National Intelligencer, May 24 and 26, 1849. 

The executive committee consisted of F. H. Elmore, Wade Hampton, D. J. 
McCord, James Gadsden, and F. W. Pickens. 

1°' Letter of Hilliard M. Judge to Calhoun, Eutaw, Alabama, April 2, 1849. 
Calhoun Corresp., 1195-1197. 

'*•• New York Semi-weekly Tribune, June 23, 1847. 

""■Letter of H V. Johnson to Calhoun, July 20, 1849, Calhoun Corresp., 1198. 
Only three of the members of Congress from Georgia signed the Southern address : 
Johnson, Haralson, and Iverson. 



CHAPTER III. 

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOUTHERN MOVEMENT IN MISSISSIPPI. 

As early as February lo, 1849, the Mississippi Free Trader was 
urging the State of Mississippi along the course that it would follow. 
In an editorial on Calhoun's address, it asserted that it did not desire 
to agitate unnecessarily, nor to stir up sectional strife, nor did it wish 
Mississippi, by any rash or impulsive action, to render herself ridic- 
ulous; but that it did hope to see complete unanimity among the 
slaveholding states in the defense of rights and interests, precious 
alike to all. It declared: 

The settlement of these questions must be strictly and entirely imanimous, 
and to accomplish this desired end, we have plied our pen, in urging upon the people 
a Southern convention. To this it must come at last — such a Convention must 
be held, for in no other way can we possibly see any chance of obtaining unanimity 
and concert of action. We therefore urge our brethren of the press to stir up the 
people to action; the time for talking or threatening is past; we must lay down our 
platform broadly and openly, and say to our Northren brethren, ' thus far and no 
further,' We believe we have yet the power to say this, but we cannot have it 
much longer, if we quietly submit to future encroachments, or appear satisfied 
whilst these encroachments are gathering strength and popular support.^ 

The members of the Democratic party in Mississippi from one end 
of the state to the other took up the Southern movement and in pubHc 
meetings heartily approved the Southern address,^ expressed gratitude 
to the senators and representatives who signed it,^ and evinced satis- 
faction at the position taken by Virginia, South Carolina, and North 
Carolina.* They also declared that any measure passed by Congress 
prohibiting slavery in the territories should be resisted by all the 



^ Mississippi Free Trader, February 10, 1849. 

2 Democratic Meeting in Port Gihson, Afississippi Free Trader, Apv'A 14, 1849; 
Democratic Meeting in Meadville, Franklin county, Ibid., April 21, 1849; Demo- 
cratic Meeting in La Fayette county, April 30, 1849, ^^^ Organizer (Oxford, Miss.), 
May 5, 1849. 

' Democratic Meeting in Jasper coimty, Mississippi Free Trader, April 11, 1849; 
Democratic Meeting in Columbus, Lowndes county, Ibid. 

* Democratic Meeting in MeadviUe, Ibid., April 21, 1849. 

45 



46 Mississippi Historical Society. 

means in the power of the slaveholding states,^ pledged themselves 
to cooperate with their brethren of the South in the adoption of such 
measures as would most effectively secure to them the rights and 
enjoyments of property, and reUeve and protect them from future 
insult and encroachment/ and required their representatives in the 
ensuing legislature to bring the subject before that body to determine 
the most suitable manner and mode of arresting the aggressions upon 
the rights and privileges of the South and of providing for the future 
safety and security of its institutions.^ 

The Whigs, on their part, as they saw the opposition to the demands 
of the South growing stronger in the North, became convinced that, 
to prevent the passage by the next Congress of the measures that 
had been proposed in the last, it was necessary to unite the South in 
a determined opposition to them; and gave in their support to the 
Southern movement. 

After several months of agitation in Mississippi, a movement began 
to take shape for some definite action by the state, A call, signed 
by forty-five leading men of both parties, was issued from Jackson, 
summoning the citizens of central Mississippi, without distinction of 
party, to meet in Jackson, May 7, 1849. The object of the meeting, 
as set forth in the call, was to take into consideration the course that 
was being pursued by many of the Northern states, through their 
representatives and senators in Congress and their state legislatures, 
upon the subject of the extension of slave labor to the newly acquired 
territories and its existence in the District of Columbia, and to ascer- 
tain whether Mississippi would cooperate with certain other states 
to arrest what appeared to be "the fixed determination on the part 
of the North to assail, if not destroy, the equality, independence and 
existence of the Southern states."^ 

The meeting was held at Jackson on the appointed day and "was 
respectable in point of numbers" and characterized by moderation, 



^ Resolutions of Democratic Meeting in Marshall county nominating Quitman 
for governor, May 5, 1849, Natchez Courier, May, 23, 1849. 

* Democratic Meeting in La Fayette county. The Organizer, May 5, 1849; Demo- 
cratic Meeting in Meadville, Mississippi Free Trader, April 21, 1849. 

' Democratic Meeting in Meadville. Ibid. 

* Natchez Weekly Courier, May i, 1849. Mississippi Free Trader, May 16, 
1849. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 47 

dignity, and almost entire unanimity.^ The governor, Joseph W. 
Matthews, was chosen president and a committee of Whigs and Demo- 
crats, the leading men of the state, was appointed, on motion of Chief 
Justice William L. Shark ey,^" to draft resolutions and to prepare an 
address explanatory of the objects of the meeting." In the evening 
the committee reported to the meeting an address to the citizens of 
Mississippi and a series of resolutions, both of which were unani- 
mously adopted. 

Since the address sets forth the position and principles on which 
the Democratic and the Whig leaders of Mississippi were united in 
initiating the movement in the state for united action in defense of its 
rights, it is of interest and importance. In it the committee, first, 
vindicated the objects and motives of the meeting and, then, dis- 
cussed the principles upon which the South placed its reliance. They 
declared that they had approached the subject of the controversy 
between the Northern and the Southern states in full view of its 
solemnity and importance, not as a mere question of expediency on 
a matter of secondary consideration, but as one in which their dearest 
rights were involved, rights that they possessed as citizens of indepen- 
dent states and that were reserved to them by the constitution of the 
United States. They also declared their veneration for the Union 
and denied that they agitated unnecessarily the alarming question of 
the controversy between the sections, for they would gladly see it 
put to rest for ever. But they were admonished by the past what 
they might expect in the future; they could not be indifferent to the 
warning furnished by the fact that at every succeeding session of Con- 
gress the question had been revived with renewed energy and vigor 
and with an increased number of friends; and they saw no abatement 

' Natchez Weekly Courier, May 15, 1849. 

The Courier quotes the Southron as stating that, but for the inclemency of the 
weather, a majority of the coimties in central Mississippi would have been repre- 
sented. 

1" William L. Sharkey had been chief Justice of Mississippi since 1832 and was 
one of the leaders of the Whig Party in the state. In the Nullification controversy 
he had accepted the doctrine of state sovereignty enunciated by Calhoim and had 
helped to organize the State Rights party formed in Mississippi at that time. 

" The committee consisted of Hon. William L. Sharkey, Chairman, Hon. John 
I. Guion, Hon. Anderson Hutchinson, George Yerger, Esq., Gen. William R. Mills, 
Col. D. C. Glenn, G. W. L. Smith, Esq., Gen. A. B. Wooldridge, Col. William R. 
Hill, Hon. Jefferson Davis, Caswell R. Clifton, Esq., Col. C. S. Tarpley, H. T. 
Ellett, Esq., Charles Scott, Esq. 



48 Mississippi Historical Society. 

of energy in pursuit of what seemed to be a settled design to encroach 
upon their rights until they should be destroyed. They asserted: 

In the prospect of approaching danger it becomes us to avert it if possible, but 
to prepare to meet it if it must come. The true patriot will endeavor to ward off 
the catastrophe which threatens to be fatal to his country, before it does its work of 
destruction. We have met not only in defence of out individual rights, but in 
defense of out common country; and we would fondly hope that our timely warning 
may save our Union unimpaired. We meet not to agitate — not to act, but to pre- 
pare for action when the occasion may be forced upon us. 

In discussing the principles in which the South placed its reliance, 
this committee denied that Congress has any power over any descrip- 
tion of property in the states and supported their position by asser- 
tions that show that the doctrine of state sovereignty had a firm hold 
among the leaders of Mississippi. Before the adoption of the con- 
stitution, they declared, 

Each State was a separate sovereignty, whose government was organized for 
the protection of life, liberty and property, and having, as every sovereignty must, 
the exclusive protection of these important subjects. By the constitution, no 
powers are given away except such as might be necessary to give us a national 
character, and a national existence, in our intercourse with foreign nations, and 
such as might serve to bind us together as a family of republics. The States did 
not surrender their control over persons and property within their limits: that 
would have destroyed their identity; and all power not delegated by the consti- 
tution is reserved to the States. The Constitution of the United States does not 
create a government with sovereign power, and property is subject alone to the 
control of a government having such power. Such control is an important attri- 
bute of sovereignty. Indeed, the protection of property is the strongest ligament 
of government. The government created by the constitution is limited. It must 
look to the constitution alone as the charter of its power, and all its actions must 
be confined within the limit there prescribed. There no power of interference with 
property within the States is to be found. 

The question of the unlimited power of Congress to legislate for 
the territories, the committee declared it was not their purpose to 
controvert in the address; but, in discussing how the power might be 
exercised if it were possessed, they asserted that the territories are 
common property, subject to be occupied by the common people 
from any portion of the Union, in the same freedom they enjoyed in 
the states, both as to their persons and their property, and denied 
that Congress has the power to say what is or is not property in the 
territories belonging to the people of the United States and to exer- 
cise over property in the territories any power detrimental to the un- 
qualified rights of the o^vners. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hear on. 49 

The basis of slavery, they foimd in the inequality between the white 
man and the negro and declared it to have existed in all ages of the 
world and to have originated not in positive or statute law but "by a 
universal law of conquest, which the God of nature gave to his highest 
work, to hold dominion and power over the inferior things of his 
creation." They further declared that slavery was a blessing to the 
negroes for servitude was their happiest and most elevated position 
and the place assigned to them by the God of nature in the great 
scheme of creation. 

The committee condemned the attitude of the people of the North 
in holding in utter disregard the provision in the constitution that 
authorized the owner to recapture his fugitive slave, lamented the 
misguided zeal of the Northerners and their false philanthropy, re- 
minded them it was not for them to determine whether slavery was 
a blessing or a curse to the South, and, in the name of a common 
country, implored them to beware lest they drive the South to extremi- 
ties that would be fatal in their results, for while the North pro- 
fessed not to interfere with slavery in the states, Southerners could 
not be mistaken as to the ultimate end that it desired to accomplish. 

The committee, also, expressed their approbation of the course of 
the delegates from Mississippi in Congress in regard to the Southern 
address and declared that, as faithful sentinels, they had warned the 
people of Mississippi of approaching danger. Furthermore, they as- 
serted that it was becoming the people of Mississippi, to vin- 
dicate the sovereignty of their state, and that it was proper for the 
whole South to act together for that puipose. They also expressed 
their unqualified concurrence in the resolutions of the Virginia legis- 
lature as clearly and forcibly setting forth the constitutional rights 
of the South. 

Finally, while asserting that they would regard any legislation by 
Congress, either past or to come, that in any degree, either directly 
or remotely, might seem to give sanction to the authority of that 
body over the subject of slavery, as void for want of power, and in 
its tendency destructive of the principles of the Union, they declared 
that it would be with the people of Mississippi to say whether they 
would meet their brethren of the North, in good faith, should 
it be tendered, in carrjdng out the Missouri compromise line, not as 
a matter of intrinsic obligation, but by common consent of the people. 



50 Mississippi Historical Society. 

For they denied most positively its legal validity as an act of legisla- 
tion and asserted that a constitutional principle admitted of no com- 
promise by Congress. 

The committee concluded the address by declaring that, as it rep- 
resented but a small portion of the state, it did not feel authorized 
to prescribe the course that should be pursued by the state for that 
was a question of state sovereignty on which the people of the whole 
state should speak. Therefore, they recommended to the meeting 
for adoption a series of resolutions recommending the citizens of 
Mississippi to hold immediately, in each county, a primary meeting 
of the citizens for the choice of delegates to meet in convention in 
Jackson on the first Monday in October, in order to express the will, 
understanding, and voice of the whole people of the state upon the 
issues presented in relation to the territories of the United States and 
the question of domestic slavery. The resolutions further recom- 
mended, that, as the controversy involved was one in which it was 
impossible that any party difference could exist in the state, in order 
to prevent any undue assumption or suspicion, on that score, there 
should be an equal number from each of the great political parties among 
the delegations to be chosen and that, to effect that object, the dele- 
gations ought to be double that of the representation of the state in 
the lower house of the legislature.^^ 

The address, designed to conciliate all parties in Mississippi, was 
hailed by both the Whig and the Democratic press as an ably written, 
temperate, and dignified document, worthy of its author and the 
meeting that sanctioned it.^^ But a lack of unanimity in the state 
as to the measure it recommended was revealed in the comment of 
the Natchez Courier on the meeting. Although speaking with approval 
of the address and the moderation, the dignity, and the spirit of una- 
nimity that characterized the meeting, it regretted that the 
Central meeting had not recommended something of "practical value" 
to the people of Mississippi. A wise man, it declared, when he per- 
ceives trouble approaching takes the best steps to protect and defend 
himself against the emergency, but the Central meeting had simply 



^Address and Resolutions adopted by the meeting of the citizens of central 
Mississippi, May 7, 1849. Mississippi Free Trader, May 16, 1849. 

^^ Natchez Weekly Courier, May 15, 1849. Mississippi Free Trader, May 16, 
1849. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 51 

adopted a report and passed resolutions recommending the people 
to assemble in a convention to adopt another report and pass another 
set of resolutions. One of the eloquent speakers, it declared, Colonel 
Jefferson Davis, appeared to think that the controversy would end 
in the dissolution of the Union and appealed to the arbitrament of the 
sword, but neither did he nor any other member of the meeting recom- 
mend anything to put the people of Mississippi in a condition to with- 
stand that bloody arbitrament. The Courier asserted: 

Had the Central meeting recommended to the people that they instruct their 
representatives in the next legislature to pass laws prohibiting further slave emi- 
gration to the state, thus nipping emancipation in the border slave states — had 
they shown our people the necessity and profit of manufacturing our raw material 
at home, of tanning our own hides, of making our own boots and shoes, hats and 
caps, and all other indispensable articles which experience has shown we can manu- 
facture with success and profit — had they recommended an extensive plan for the 
encoiu-agement of home industry among our people, the development of the varied 
resources of the cotton growing region, calculated to render us commercially inde- 
pendent within oiu-selves — we believe that great and lasting good would have been 
accomplished." 

Though the Whigs who formed so large a part of the Central meeting 
in Jackson, comprising as they did "the pride, the strength, and the 
ornament of their party," gave by their participation in that meeting 
a guarantee that the Whig party would imite with the majority party 
in Mississippi in the movement to have the state present an undivided 
front in the controversy over slavery; yet neither party had any idea 
of dropping all party issues and amalgamating in one great Southern 
party. Both entered the campaign for the election of state officers 
and members of Congress with all their old time partisan vigor and even 
used differences of opinion as to the slavery controversy as campaign 
material. 

The Democratic convention met first. In regard to the slavery 
question, it contented itself with simply declaring that, since the re- 
peated, continued, and rapid aggressions of the Northern against the 
Southern states of the Union had reached a crisis that demanded 
the united, harmonious, and earnest action of the friends of the South, 
without distinction of party, the convention cordially approved the 
address and resolutions adopted at the Central meeting in Jackson 
and recommended the democracy of the state to engage in the primary 

" Natchez Weekly Courier, May 15, 1849. 



52 Mississippi Historical Society. 

meetings to select delegates to the convention recommended by the 
Central meeting.^* 

The convention nominated for governor, General John A Quitman, 
who had been an enthusiastic advocate of westward expansion, had 
won fame in the Mexican War, and had, since the days of the nullifi- 
cation controversy, been an ardent defender of Calhoun's political 
theories and supporter of the rights of the slaveholding states. Al- 
though in the struggle over the tariff, he had pointed out the necessity 
of the South 's accepting the doctrine of state sovereignty to defend 
its peculiar institution,^® the people of the state had not seen with 
his clearness of vision and the Democratic party had condemned 
the political theories of the "Nullifiers" and held them up to scorn." 
In the intervening years, Quitman stood true to his principles, and 
his party and his state were being brought to his views by the com- 
pelling forces of economic, social, and political interests. 

Though the convention, contenting itself merely with approving 
the address and the resolutions of the Central meeting, did not make a 
statement of the object of the Democratic party of Mississippi in the 
Southern movement and the means that it proposed to use, a state- 
ment made in a speech before the convention by Jefferson Davis, 
one of the originators and the guiding spirits of the movement and a 
trusted leader of the party may be taken as expressing the views of 
the party on those subjects. Davis declared: 

To preserve the Union as established under the Constitution, and our equal 
rights and privileges in it is our highest hope. I believe the united, decided, 
energetic action of the South will insure success, whilst divisions among ourselves 
will entail consequences from the contemplation of which every patriot must 
recoil. We must be harmonious to be respected, and united to be safe.^^ 

But the Democratic convention of the first congressional district, 
perhaps, set forth most fully the position of the Democrats of Missis- 
sippi, at this time, on the questions at issue between the two sections. 

1^ Proceedings of the Democratic State Convention, June i8 and 19, 1849. 
Mississippi Free Trader, June 27, 1849. 

_^® Address to the people of Mississippi by the committee appointed by the States 
Rights Convention assembled at Jackson May 21, 1834. Vicksburg Register, 
July 31, 1834. 

" Journal of the Convention of the Democratic party of the State of Mississippi, 
Jackson, June 9, 1834, Vicksburg Register, July 10, 1834. 

'* Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Democratic state convention, Cohimbus 
Democrat, August i, 1849. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 53 

The preamble adopted by the convention, in an unrestrained indict- 
ment of the North for its course towards slavery, reveals the forces 
that were arousing the state to action, and the resolutions give the 
purpose of the Democrats, in the northern part of the state, at least, 
in joining the Southern movement. 

The Northern brethren, the preamble declared, influenced by 
feelings of fanaticism, or stimulated by unjust and ungenerous prej- 
udices, had for many years manifested a settled hostihty to the South- 
em states and a growing disposition to intermeddle with the relation 
between the master and his slave as it was recognized in the constitu- 
tion of the Union and estabUshed by the fundamental laws of the 
states. Animated by this spirit and alike unmindful of those funda- 
mental ties which grew out of the compact of the Union, and 
of the obligations imposed by the solemn sanction of the constitu- 
tion, as well as the endearing principles of justice, they had set on foot 
a regular system of measures for the avowed object of the ultimate over- 
throw of the institution of slavery in the states where it existed. To 
effect this purpose, the press, the pulpit, the hustings, as well as the 
halls of state legislatures had all been used and, by those potent instru- 
ments, the people of the South had been abused and insulted, their 
right to their slaves, which rested upon the soHd basis of constitu- 
tional guarantees, openly denied, the institution denounced as a 
flagrant violation of the laws of God, of religion, and of humanity, and 
the assurance given that the foul stain of slavery upon the national 
character should not continue. In addition, the opponents of slav- 
ery had organized their forces, by means of anti-slavery societies, the 
periodical assemblages of which were marked by excited discussions 
of the evil and the sin of slavery and by defamatory harangues against 
the slave owners of the South, whom they presented to the world as 
heartless tyrants and, very often, as pirates and robbers. These views 
they had embodied in pamphlets and anti-slavery tracts, embellished 
by pictorial representations, often of the most insulting and Ubelous 
character, and distributed for general circulation. In addition, the 
societies were engaged in raising funds to pay unprincipled emissaries, 
whose business it was to creep in among the slaves and incite them to 
sedition and rebellion, or steal them from their owners and carry them 
into free states; and also in agitatmg a dissolution of the Union as a 
means of alarming the people of the South into submission. Added 



54 Mississippi Historical Society. 

to all this, they had sought the alliance of a formidable foreign gov- 
ernment to aid their schemes of aggression and intrigue. 

But not satisfied with these modes of attack, the abolition party 
had resorted to the more imposing form of solemn legislative resolu- 
tions and state laws. In some of the Northern states, the people of 
the slaveholding states had been admonished, by resolves, of the great 
sin of slavery and told that, if it were continued, the Union should be 
dissolved, for slave holders were not fit to associate with the people 
of the North. In others, provision had been made, in direct violation 
of a plain provision of the constitution, to prevent the owner of a 
fugitive slave from recovering his property; and, pursuing the same 
policy, some of the states had refused to surrender persons who had 
stolen slaves and made their escape from justice, though indictments 
had been regularly found against them, and had had the insulting 
audacity to tell the people of the South that slaves were not and could 
not be subjects of property. 

Not satisfied, however, with this war of words and this system of 
aggression at home, the abolition party had advanced boldly into the 
halls of Congress and sought to establish its supremacy through the 
instrumentality of the national legislature. It had not yet ventured 
so far as to invoke that body to break up the internal organization 
of the state governments by passing a law to abolish slavery in the 
states; but it claimed for Congress a power which was but little less 
exorbitant and scarcely less dangerous to the slaveholding states, 
and urged its exercise with a zeal and perseverance that sufficiently 
attested the important influence that they expected it to exert towards 
the accomplishment of their ultimate purpose. This was the power 
to aboUsh slavery in the District of Columbia and in the territories 
of the United States and to suppress the slave trade among the 
states. These several measures were only so many links in the vast 
chain of contrivances, by which the Southern states were to be bound 
captives to the triumphant car of abolitionism. They were only a 
well arranged system of means to accomplish the ultimate end of 
carrying abolition into the states. However imfounded those pre- 
tentions might be in point of justice or constitutional law, recent 
events of an important character and, more especially, the conduct 
of Congress, during several of its late sittings, had given rise to the 
most serious alarms of the Southern people. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 55 

The people of the South, the preamble then asserted, had hitherto 
forborne to do more than complain in terms of gentle remonstrance 
and the spirit that had dictated those gentle measures of resistance 
appeared to have been mistaken for pusillanimity, or evidence of final 
submission. If so, it was a duty the people of the South owed their 
Northern brethren, as well as themselves, to undeceive them and to 
inform them, in respectful, but firm language, that further aggressions 
upon the rights of the South would not and could not be tolerated. 

This the convention proceeded to do, in a most unmistakable manner, 
be resolving that slavery existed in the United States as a domestic 
institution over which Congress had no jurisdiction; that Congress 
had no power to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia or in the 
territories of the United States, or to pass any law to regulate or sup- 
press the slave trade in the states, that the territories belonged alike 
to all the states and that any act of Congress that should impose 
imequal restrictions upon citizens of the slave states who might de- 
sire to emigrate to the territories would be unjust, invidious, uncon- 
stitutional and abhorrent; that Congress had no power to pass the 
Wilmot proviso in any legislation it might adopt in regard to the 
territories and that if the proviso were adopted, it ought to be resisted 
by all means and at all hazards. 

Finally the convention resolved that, if the North should continue 
its scheme of aggression, insult, and outrage upon their property, 
their feelings, and their honor, they would feel it a sacred duty to pros- 
ecute such just measures of a counteracting character as might bring 
them peace and secure them in the enjoyment of their constitutional 
rights; that they cherished a sacred veneration for the union of the 
states as it existed by the terms and compromises of the constitution 
and that they would cling to it as the greatest safeguard of their rights 
and happiness; that they, therefore, sincerely regretted that the people 
of the North had "so repeatedly of late years, in their conduct and by 
solemn and deliberate resolutions, threatened to break down the proud 
pillars of this venerated fabric and to offer its fragments as a propi- 
tiatory sacrifice to the insatiate spirit of a -^vild fanaticism," and 
deemed it their duty to themselves and to their country to inter- 
pose, by prompt and decisive action, for arresting the further prog- 
ress of measures that were pregnant with such fearful issues; and 
that they recommended to their fellow citizens throughout the state 



56 Mississippi Historical Society. 

that they lay aside all party feelings and joining hands around the 
holy altar of their common country, make common cause in one imited 
bond of brotherhood, in the defense of their honor, their property, 
and their constitutional rights.^^ 

The Whigs, on their part, as they met in their county primaries 
to select delegates to the Whig state convention, or the "Mississippi 
Taylor Convention' ' as the Whig press styled it, defended President 

^^ Preamble and Resolutions of the Democratic Convention of the First Con- 
gressional District, Pontotoc, June 4, 1849. The Organizer, June 9, 1849. 

Jacob Thompson, whom this convention renominated to his seat in Congress, 
in his letter of acceptance, also helps to reveal the forces impelling the Democratic 
leaders to further the Southern movement. He writes: "I am not unconscious of 
the fact that my experience in legislation has given me great advantages, but that 
very experience teaches me the importance and difficulty of the present crisis. A 
majority of the people of the United States give unmistakable evidence of their 
fixed determination to overthrow our domestic institutions; while our prosperity, 
our happiness, our countr>', all that we hold sacred in life, depend upon their pres- 
ervation in their integrity and quiet enjoyment. A total abolition of slavery is 
the avowed object, yet cautiously do they approach this end in their legislative 
action. They begin the work with unconstitutional and unjust restrictions upon 
the people of the South in the far-off territories; this effected, then wiU follow with 
rapid step, the overthrow of slavery in the District of Columbia. There they 
propose to close the first chapter in the history of their aggressions, so far as the 
developments in Congress prove, and pause to witness their effect upon our people, 
and laugh at, and mock our contortions, our menaces, and our anticipated final 
submission. But with their purpose openly avowed, does any sane mind believe 
that this spirit can be propitiated and satisfied by a tame yielding to an acknowl- 
edged infraction of our rights? It is impossible. Will we leave to our children 
the task of resistance, a task which we had not the manliness and courage to per- 
form ourselves? Because we know the history of the world demonstrates that a 
spirit of submission to wrong and injustice on the part of a nation or people, invites 
and begets a spirit of aggression and assault, in the minds of those clothed with 
power. The performance of the two first acts in this great drama, as I sincerely 
believe, wiU be attempted in the next Congress. Already a Vice-President is in- 
stalled who pants for the honor to affix his signature to such bills. Already a can- 
didate is designated by the party in power, for the Speakership of the House of 
Representatives,who wiU so arrange his committees as to bring forward in the most 
imposing form these disastrous measures. Already we have a cabinet surrounding 
the President of the United States, performing the whole of the executive duties, 
a majority of whom are eager for the enactment of the 'Wilmot Proviso' restriction. 
What then, under these circumstances, can your member in Congress hope to ac- 
complish? To stand by and see the \'itals of his constituents pierced through the 
shield of the constitution which is thrown around them is a melancholy and revolt- 
ing task. Is there then no way of escape? I consider there is one and one only. 
It is to be found in the spirit of our people, in that kind of spirit which moved our 
fathers in other days — that spirit which is breathed in the fourth resolution adopted 
by your Convention with one simple amendment, which is consonant with all the 
resolutions adopted on this subject — 'Resolved, That Congress has no power to 
pass the 'Wilmot Proviso' in any legislation she may adopt in regard to said Terri- 
tories, and if the same is adopted, it ought to be' (and it shall be) 'resisted by all 
means and at all hazards'." Letter of Acceptance of Nomination to Congress 
from Jacob Thompson, Oxford, June 19, 1849, The Organizer, June 23, 1849. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 57 

Taylor from the attacks of the Democrats. They expressed full 
confidence in his honesty and devotion to the constitution and in his 
capacity to carry out the object for which he was elected and declared 
that it was illiberal and unfair for the Democratic press to judge his 
administration, since it had been in office only a few months.^o They 
also declared it to be the duty of all lovers of law and order to dis- 
countenance disunionists wherever they might be found and to use 
all honorable means to elevate men to office who would use their 
energies to fraternize all interests of the Union and strengthen the 
bonds of the confederacy .^^ 

The Whigs in the "Mississippi Taylor Convention," reflecting 
these sentiments expressed in the coimty conventions, declared, before 
taking up the subject of slavery, their love "for the Union, as 
the bond of peace and safety of the States, and of defense against 
foreign foes," and expressed the fullest faith that the "glorious Union" 
would be preserved "as well by the firmness and patriotism of Gen- 
eral Taylor, in the exercise of all constitutional means, as by the good 
sense, intelligence and virtue of the people in every portion of our 
extended country — ^preserved as it was made, and as it is, with all its 
guarantees." 

In regard to slavery, the Whig convention did not follow the course 
of the Democratic state convention in simply reaffirming the address 
and resolutions of the Central meeting; but it set forth the position 
of the Whig party in Mississippi at that time on the questions at 
issue between the sections, and revealed the motives impelling it to 
join the Southern movement by adopting a series of " Resolutions on 
the Institution of Slavery," in which, setting forth, to the fullest 
extent, the rights of the citizens of the slave states in regard to slave 
property in the territories, it denied the power of Congress or of the 
territorial legislatures to prohibit the citizens of the slave states from 
emigrating, with their property in slaves, into the territories, and 
asserted it to be the duty of Congress to protect them in the enjoy- 
ment of their slave property in the territories.^ 

By contrasting the resolutions of the Whig convention with the 

*" Taylor Meeting in Jasper county, Natchez Weekly Courier, June 26, 1849; 
Taylor Meeting in Adams county, IbU., July 2, 1849; Taylor Meeting in Frank- 
lin county, June 30, 1849, Ibid., July 17, 1849. 

^ Taylor Meeting in Franklin county, June 30, 1849, Ihid., July 17, 1849. 

^ Resolutions of the Mississippi Taylor Convention, Ibid., July 24, 1849. 



58 Mississippi Historical Society. 

preamble and resolutions of the Democratic convention of the first 
congressional district, an excellent idea of the difference between the 
temper and the point of view of the Whigs and the Democrats in 
Mississippi in regard to the slavery issues may be obtained. The 
Whig resolutions are a calm, dispassionate statement of the rights 
of the citizens of the slave states in regard to slave property in the 
territories and give every evidence of having been written by a con- 
servative group having great interests of property threatened by the 
influence of the anti-slavery sentiment in Congress and still more by 
the clash that might be precipitated between the anti-slavery element 
and the defenders of slavery who advocated extreme measures of 
defense. Therefore, they do not seek to promote the sentiment of 
bitterness and resentment already strong in the state; but they en- 
deavor, rather, to allay all feelings of alarm by expressing the fullest 
confidence that the Union would be preserved with all the guarantees 
of the constitution unimpaired. 

The preamble and resolutions of the Democratic convention do 
not reveal the same absorption in the interest of property shown by 
the Whig resolutions; neither do they go so far in the assertion of the 
rights of the owners of slave property in the territories. They deny 
the right of Congress to abolish slavery in the territories, but they 
do not make any assertion concerning the power of the territorial 
legislatures over slavery or the duty of Congress to protect it in the 
territories.^* They display irritation and resentment at the charges 

-' The Democratic party in Mississippi did not advance to this position as early 
as the Whig. In the second congressional district, the power and duty of Congress 
to legislate for the protection of slavery in the territories was made an issue in this 
campaign, W. L. Harris, the Whig candidate, taking his position squarely on the 
resolutions of the Whig state convention on that subject and W. S. Featherston, 
the Democratic candidate, favoring the doctrine of non-intervention. The 
Houston Patriot of September 12, 1849, edited by J. A. Orr, denounced the 
opinion of Harris "as the most insidious and dangerous doctrine ever incul- 
cated by a Southern man upon a Southern constituency." "Nothing can be 
clearer," it declared, "if Congress has the power to say that slavery shall 
exist in California, it certainly has the power to say that it shaU not e.xist there. 
If it has the power to protect the slaveholder, it has certainly the power not to pro- 
tect the slaveholder .... Yielding the power to legislate on this subject, 
we yield our constitutional defense against the passage of the Wilmot Proviso." In 
its issue of October 7, 1849, the Houston Patriot, contending further against what it 
called "Col. Harris' doctrine of congressional interference," asserted that the judi- 
ciary of the United States furnished " the safest and surest protection that can pos- 
sibly be extended to the slaveholder." 

The Monroe Democrat, August 11, 1849, in the same controversy, declared that 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 59 

of the abolitionists and the stigma cast by them on the Southern 
states on account of slavery, and they tend to arouse a sentiment of 
resistance in the state both by their general tenor and by direct 
assertions concerning the course the South should pursue if the aggres- 
sion on its rights should be continued. 

The resolutions of both conventions, however, express a venera- 
tion for the Union and a desire on the part of the people of the state 
to cling to it as the greatest safeguard of their rights and their happi- 
ness; and clearly show that the Southern movement, in its beginning 
in Mississippi, was for the protection of Southern rights within the 
Union. 

The state conventions of both parties having recommended the 
sending of delegates to the October convention, primary meetings 
were held in the counties by the parties either jointly or separately 
for the appointment of delegates, and opportimities were offered in 
these for the expression of dijBferences of opinion as to the course that 
should be pursued in the convention. A discussion of "The Southern 
Meeting" in Adams county to select delegates to the convention 
provoked a controversy over the objects and power of that conven- 
tion. Judge George Winchester, a Whig, stated, in the Natchez 
Courier, that if the object of the October convention were, upon the 
passage of the Wilmot proviso, to resist to the last extremity by re- 
sorting to war in the name of the sovereign people of Mississippi, the 
convention, not being legally constituted, had no such power; that it 
could only pass resolutions and draw up an address. But there were 
other means of preserving the Union and the constitution and the 

"The power of Congress over Territories is, in our opinion, a very limited power. 
It extends to giving them a government and such political laws as are alone neces- 
sary to their protection. The municipal laws, laws of police and such others as 
are necessary to their protection by the constitution, are left in the hands of the 
people. They are the legitimate repositories of all such powers. Congress cannot 
divest them of the right, for the simple reason it lacks the constitutional authority." 
Again in its issue of October 24, 1849, the Monroe Democrat asserted that "any 
appeal to Congress which recognizes the necessity of express legislation to protect 
the South in her rights is equivalent to an admission that the South stands in the 
Confederacy not as an equal but as a dependent upon the justice of Congress. Let 
the opinion but spread that Southern property requires legislation beyond that 
which is required for any other property, where both are recognized and protected 
as property by the common Constitution, and we of the South will have reached 
that point of dependence to which Northern Abolitionism has been for years urging 

us Such is the position of Mr. Harris." Natchez Daily Courier , 

August 20, 1859. 



6o Mississippi Historical Society. 

rights, honor, and safety of the Southern states as equal members of 
the Union, he asserted, than either "submission to the Wilmot Pro- 
viso," or "resistance to the last extremity by the last resort of kings" 
and the October convention would recommend other means.^* 

The Mississippi Free Trader declared that the devotion of the 
judge to the Union should certainly be commended, but that his de- 
votion should not lead him in submission to the feet of the free soilers 
and the abolitionists. It would be sheer nonsense and humiliating 
in the extreme to hold a state convention and adopt resolutions vindi- 
cating their rights, and then when the crisis came, vilely surrender 
them for the preservation of the Union. That was not the way to 
defend and preserve the Union, for there could be no Union among 
states where the minority were unequal and their rights unacknowl- 
edged and unrespected. A Union Uke that was not worth preserving 
and a large majority of the Southern people were sensible of the fact. 
The editor of the Free Trader declared: 

We are no disunionists and are as devotedly attached to the Union as any man 
can possible be, but we do not concieve ourselves called upon, morally or politically, 
to surrender our dearest rights, and our prosperity, for its preservation. Our 
fathers surrendered nothing when they formed the constitutional compact, and 
and when that compact is madly violated, why should we submit to wholesale 
robbery merely for the sake of the Union — a Union founded upon our disgrace? 
We are for maintaining the Constitution As It Is. We will not consent that North- 
em men shall violate it with impunity. We are for the Union as it is 

We take no single step — we move not a single inch — we utter no threat — but in 
defense of the Union. If the constitution is violated the North will be wholly and 
entirely responsible for all the consequences which ensue.^* 

Continuing this discussion, the Free Trader disclosed the division 
in the Southern movement that would result in its disruption by de- 
claring that it was evident that certain prominent men in the state 
were determined to cover up their abandonment of Southern rights 
by crying "disunion." It declared that the test question that should 
be put in selecting delegates to the convention was, "Are you willing 
to submit, Should Congress abolish Slavery in the Territories, or 
prohibit its introduction into any of the Territory acquired from Mex- 
ico? — for the Convention does not meet to submit, but to resist to 
the last extremity the Wilmot proviso, and to denounce indignantly 



** Natchez Weekly Courier, September 19, 1849. 
^Mississippi Free Trader, September 12, 1849. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. Ci 

its reckless advocates. The South has conceded enough for the sake 
of the Union. "26 

Although the "poKticians" of Mississippi were accused of declaim- 
ing loudly on the subject of resistance and yet evincing a notable 
timidity to pledge themselves to a definite plan of action,^^ the leaders 
of the state were carefully formulating a definite program to be carried 
out in the October convention. BeHeving that the success of the 
Southern movement depended upon its support by all the Southern 
states, they corresponded with the leaders of the movement in the other 
states to ascertain what their opinions were both as to its general 
course, and as to the action that should be taken by Mississippi in the 
October Convention .^^ The Mississippi leaders naturally turned with 
the greatest confidence to the one whose devotion to the interests of his 
section had made him the great spokesman of Southern rights. Cal- 
hoim, since the days of nuUification, had perceived the inevitable con- 
flict between the economic and social organizations of the two sections 
and had worked both to unite the South in defense of its interests 
and to devise some way, if possible, to protect those interests within 
the Union. In this crisis, he saw Uttle prospect of arresting the aggres- 
sions of the North and was under the impression that the time was at 
hand when the South had to choose between disunion and submission ; 
but he thought if anything could arrest those aggressions, it would 
be for the South, with an unbroken front, to present, without delay. 



^ Mississippi Free Trader. September 12, 1849. The Free Trader tried to swing 
the Whigs into line in the Southern movement or to destroy their influence in the 
state by quoting Horace Greeley in the New York Tribune to the effect that the 
Southern Whigs would be party neither in word nor in deed to any attempt to di- 
vide the Union because of the exclusion of slavery from the new territories, that they 
knew well that such exclusion was a fixed fact and were fully resolved not to sever the 
Union on account of it, and that at least half of them would not have slavery ex- 
tended if they could and resisted the Wilmot proviso strenuously only because they 
deemed such enactment a needless irritation of their constituents and not because 
they expected or wished to extend slavery. Furthermore, the Free Trader asserted 
that the whole Whig press of the North thought the Southern Whigs imsound on 
the slavery question and that the way for them to convince their Democratic friends 
in the South that they were misrepresented was to meet in the convention and take 
a decided and open stand for Southern rights and Southern institutions. If the South 
were united in defense of their rights they could be sustained, if not they would 
be trampled on. Mississippi Free Trader, September 5, 1849. 

27 Letter of Geo. Calhoun to Messrs. Fall and Marshall, Editors of the Mississip- 
pian, Jackson, Miss., September 10, 1849. Claiborne Correspondence, State Ar- 
chives, Jackson, Miss. 

2* Speech of Foote, Cong. Globe, 32 Cong., i Sess., 134-135. 



62 Mississippi Historical Society. 

to the North, the alternative of dissolving the partnership or of ceas- 
ing to violate the rights of the South. For this purpose, he urged 
upon his friends in the Southern states, during the spring and summer 
of 1849, the calling of a Southern convention, for only in that way 
could the South as a whole present authoritatively its demands to 
the North.29 

To the Mississippi leaders who appealed to him he gave the same 
advice. In a letter to Collin S. Tarpley,^'' who sent him a copy of 
the proceedings of the Central meeting in May and asked him for his 
opinion as to the course that should be adopted by the state conven- 
tion in October, he gave very explicit directions as to what should be 
done in that convention. He wrote: 

In my opinion there is but one thing that holds out the promise of saving both 
ourselves and the Union, and that is a Southern Convention; and that, if much 
longer delayed, cannot. It ought to have been held this fall, and ought not to 
be delayed beyond another year. All our movements ought to look to that result. 
For that purpose every Southern State ought to be organized with a central committee 
and one to each county. Ours is already. It is indispensible to produce concert 
and prompt action. In the meantime, firm and resolute resolutions ought to be 
adopted by yours and such meetings as may take place before the assembling of the 
Legislature in the fall. They, when they meet, ought to take up the subject in the 
most solemn and impressive manner. The great object of a Southern Convention 
should be to put forth, in a solemn manner, the causes of our grievances in an address 
to the other states, and to admonish them in a solemn manner as to the consequences 
that must follow, if they should not be redressed, and to take measures preparatory 
to it in case they should not be. The call should be addressed to all those who are 
desirous to save the Union and our institutions, and who, in the alternative (should 
it be forced on us) of submission or dissolution would prefer the latter, No State 
could better take the lead in this great conservative movement than yours. It is 
destined to be the greatest of sufferers, if the abolitionists should succeed; and I 
am not certain but by the time your convention meets, or at furthest your Legis- 
lature, that the time will have come to make the call.*"- 

In a letter to Henry S. Foote, dated August 2, 1849, Calhoun practi- 
cally repeated his advice to Tarpley.^^ These letters and, at least, 

-'Letter of Calhoun to John H. Means, Fort Hill, April 13, 1849, Calhoun Cor- 
resp., 764; Letter of Calhoun to Andrew Pickens Calhoun, Fort Hill, July 24, 1849, 
Ibid., 769. 

^^ Collin S. Tarpley was an eminent lawyer in Mississippi and was appointed, 
in 1 85 1, to succeed Chief Justice Sharkey on the Supreme bench. He was an ardent 
Democrat and an enthusiastic supporter of Southern rights. 

^' Letter of Calhoun to Colonel Tarpley, of Mississippi, Fort Hill, July 9, 1849, 
Cong. Globe, 32 Cong, i Sess., .A.ppx., 282, or National Intelligencer, June 6, 1850. 

'- Letter of Calhoun to Henry S. Foote August 2, 1849, National Era, June 12, 
1851. 

In this letter to Foote, Calhoun urges the calling of the Southern convention 
by the Mississippi convention more than he had in his letter to Tarpley. "The 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 63 

one other from Calhoun to Foote were shown to both Whigs and Demo- 
crats who would shape the policy of the October convention.^* Al- 
though the influence of Calhoun was kept secret^ because of the general 
opinion, due to the popular view of his part in nullification, that 
any measure in which he took the initiative must partake of the 
nature of disorganization and the consequent unwillingness to follow 
him,3^ his suggestions, outlining as they did the course that pubHc 
sentiment in the state was prepared to approve, were closely followed 
in the convention. 

The October convention met on the appointed day and, although 
it was not unanimously supported by the people of the state, since a 
portion of the community thought that the movement was premature 
and that it would be better to wait until Congress had acted, most 
of the counties of the state sent delegates and both the great poUtical 
parties were equally represented.*® Chief Justice Sharkey was chosen 
president and a committee was appointed to draw up resolutions. 

The resolutions reported by this committee and adopted by the 
convention are of great interest both as the first formal expression 
by the state of Mississippi on the questions at issue between the 
sections and as marking an important advance in the Southern move- 
ment as a whole. In the preajnble of the resolutions, the convention 
set forth the causes of the Southern movement and the principles 
upon which the resolutions were based. It was boldly asserted, they 
declared, that Congress possessed unlimited power of legislation over 
all the territories belonging in common to the people of the United 
States, that it, consequently, had power to prohibit slavery in the 
territories, and that the exercise of such power was expedient and 

call ought to be accompanied by an address, briefly stating the ground for making 
it," he writes. "I trust your Convention will make the call. It could come from 
no better quarter. Your State is the center of the southern portion of the great 
valley of the Mississippi; more deeply, if possible, interested than any other, and 
would be less likely to excite a feeling of jealousy than if it came from this or any 
of the older States. If your Convention should take the stand, and recommend 
at the same time a general organization of the Southern States, I would agree to 
underwrite the consequences. Among your other advantages, the Whig party 
would more fuUy unite in the call in any other State but this." 

33 Letter from Henry S. Foote to Calhoun September 25, 1849, Calhoun Corresp., 
1204; Letter from A. Hutchinson to Calhoun, October 5, 1849, Ibi<^-> 1206. 

^ Ibid., 1206. 

35 Mississippi Free Trader, February 10, 1849. 

'6 Speech of William L. Sharkey in Vicksburg, October 8, 1850, Hinds County 
Gazette, October 31, 1850. 



64 Mississippi Historical Society. 

necessary in as much as slavery was an evil which must be eradicated 
from the land. With a few patriotic and honored exceptions, they 
asserted, the people of the Northern states seemed determined to 
adopt the Wilmot proviso, or the principle it contained. Every 
succeeding year brought forth new expedients for the accomplishment 
of that object, and the press, the pulpit, and the ballot box had all 
become tributary to the fanatical hostility against the South. It was 
vain to hope for an abandonment of their settled design. Submis- 
sion only provoked perseverence on the part of the aggressors and it 
was wise in states, as it was in individuals, to resist encroachments. 
In the unfortunate controversy there were but two alternatives: the 
one was submission and the other resistance. To the one they could 
not, they would not, consent; the other they were reluctant to adopt. 

In the name of their constituents, they solemnly denied the exist- 
ence of the power in Congress to exclude slavery from the territories, 
protested against its exercise, and asserted that it would violate the 
constitution and lead to a dissolution of the Union. They declared 
that the states were sovereign, that the federal government possessed 
only such pov/ers as were granted to it by the constitution, with such 
limited powers as might be indispensably necessary as incidents to 
the express grant, and that consequently, it could legislate only on 
the subjects confided to it, and on them only in strict subordination 
to every principle of the constitution. 

They asserted that the territories acquired from Mexico were the 
common property of the United States and that the people of the 
states had a right to move to them and to take with them their prop- 
erty, their religion, and their liberty. They also added that Congress 
did not create property in slaves nor could it say that they should 
cease to be property, that to abolish slavery in the territories was to 
diminish their value and to appropriate the whole of the territories 
to the use of one portion of the people of the United States to the ex- 
clusion of another, and finally that the power of Congress to legislate 
for the territories was power to protect the citizen and his property 
and not to declare what was property.^'' 

The resolutions that this preamble introduced became the basis 
of the Southern movement in Mississippi and the platform on which 

" Preamble of "The State Rights Convention," Mississippi Free Trader, Octo- 
ber lo, 1840. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Eearon. 65 

all parties in the state professed to stand throughout the controversy 
and are, therefore, among the important documents of this crisis. 
They read as follows: 

1. Resolved, That we continue to entertain a devoted and cherished attachment 
to the Union, but we desire to have it as it was formed and not as an engine of 
oppression. 

2. That the institution of slavery in the Southern States is left, by the constitu- 
tion, exclusively under the control of the States in which it exists, as a part of their 
domestic policy, which they, and they only, have the right to regulate, abolish or 
perpetuate, as they may severally judge expedient; and that all attempts, on the 
part of Congress, or others, to interfere with this subject, either directly or indi- 
rectly, are in violation of the Constitution, dangerous to the rights and safety 
of the South, and ought to be promptly resisted. 

3. That Congress has no power to pass any law abolishing slavery in the Dis- 
trict of Columbia, or to prohibit the slave trade between the several States, or to 
prohibit the introduction of slavery into the territories of the Unites States; and 
that the passage by Congress of any such law, would not only be a dangerous vio- 
lation of the constitution, but would afford evidence of a fixed and deliberate de- 
sign, on the part of that body, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the 
States. 

4. That we would regard the passage by Congress, of the "Wilmot Proviso" 
(which would, in effect, deprive the citizens of an equal participation in the terri- 
tories acquired equally by their blood and treasure) as an unjust and insulting 
discrimination — to which these States cannot, without poHtical degradation, sub- 
mit; and to which this Convention, representing the feelings and opinions of the 
people of Mississippi, solemnly declare they will not submit. 

5. That the passage of the Wilmot Proviso, or of any law abolishing slavery 
in the District of Columbia, by the Congress of the United States, would of itself, 
be such a breach of the federal compact as, in that event, will make it the duty, 
as it is the right of the slaveholding states, to take care of their own safety, and to 
treat the non-slaveholding States as enemies to the slave-holding States and their 
domestic institutions. 

6. That the Legislature is hereby requested to pass such laws as may, in their 
opinion, be best calculated to encourage the emigration of citizens 01 the slave- 
holding States, with slaves, to the new territories of the United States. 

7. That, in view of the frequent and increasing evidence of the determination 
of the people of the non-slave-holding states to disregard the guarantees of the 
constitution and to agitate the subject of slavery; both in and out of Congress, 
avowedly for the purpose of effecting its abolition in the States; and also, in view 
of the facts set forth in the late "Address of the Southern Members of Congress," 
this convention proclaims the deliberate conviction that the time has arrived when 
the Southern States should take coimsel together for their common safety; and that 
a convention of the slave-holding States should be held at Nashville, Tenn, on the ist 
MONDAY IN JUNE next, to devise and adopt some mode of resistance to these 
aggressions and that this Convention do appoint twelve delegates and twelve alter- 
nates — being double the number of our Senators and Representatives in Congress 
— to attend such convention, and that the other slave-holding States be invited to 
appoint delegates agreeably to the same ratio of representations. 

8. In the language of an emment Northern writer and patriot — "The rights of 
the South in African service exists not only under but over the Constitution. 
They existed before the government was formed. The Constitution was rather 
sanctioned by them than they by the Constitution. Had not that instrument ad- 
mitted the sovereignty of those rights, it never would have been itself admitted by 
the South. It bowed in deference to rights older in their date, stronger in their 



66 Mississippi Historical Society. 

claims, and holier in their nature, than any other which the Constitution can boats. 
Those rights may not be changed— even by a change of the Constitution. They 
are out of reach of the nation, as a nation. The confederacy may dissolve and 
the Constitution pass away, but those rights will remain unshaken — will exist while 
the South exists — and when they faU, the South will perish with them." 

9. That to procure unity and promptness of action in this State, this Convention 
recommends that a central or State association be formed at the capital, and affili- 
ated county associations within the several counties in the State. 

10. That we recommend to the Legislature of this State, that at its next session, 
a law be enacted making it the duty of the governor of the State, by proclamation, 
to call a general Convention of the State, and to issue writs of election based upon 
the ratio of representation in the State Legislature, upon the passage by Congress 
of the "Wilmot Proviso," or any law abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia, 
or prohibiting the slave trade between the states, to take into consideration the act 
of aggression, and the mode and measures of redress. 

11. That a committee of six be chosen by the Convention to prepare an address 
to the people of the slaveholding States.^* 

These resolutions embodied the utmost joint action that could be 
obtained in the convention. A resolution was reported to the con- 
vention by the committee on resolutions, declaring that the passage 
of a law admitting California into the Union at the next session of 
Congress, imder a constitution made by the popidation of California 
at that time, would be a fraud upon the slave states and should be 
resisted by them.^^ But it was strongly protested against in a report 
made by a minority of the committee,'*'' and met with so much opposi- 
tion in the convention that it was withdrawn .^^ 

The difference of opinion in the convention in regard to the admis- 
sion of California clearly reveals the division in the state, in regard 
to the demands that should be made on Congress, that was finally 
to di\ade the South and make the Compromise of 1850 possible. The 
minority of the conmiittee on resolutions declared in regard to the 
resolution on California reported from the committee that no such 
question had been before the people of the state, or of any other of 
the slave states, so far as they were aware. Nor did they believe 
that it would be concurred in by the people of Mississippi of either 
party, much less by the people of all the slave states; and that to make 
such an act of Congress an issue between the non-slave states and the 



" Mississippi Free Trader, October 10, 1849. 

'^ Minority Report of the State Rights Convention, Ibid., October 6, 1849. 

" Ibid. 

^ Speech of \V. L. Sharkey at a Union Meeting in Vicksburg, October 8, 1850, 
Hinds County Gazelle, October 31, 1850. Letter of A. Hutchinson to Calhoun, 
Jackson, October 5, 1849, Calhoun Corresp., 1206. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hear on. 67 

slave states, upon which united resistance by the latter was to be 
made on the ground of fraud in the former in the exercise of consti- 
tutional power, would be to place the slave states upon a less lofty 
attitude of clear and indisputable right than that which they held 
on the question of unconstitutional laws that immediately or remotely 
attacked the relative social inequalities of master and slave and the 
social and political existence of the slave states as states.*^ 

According to the resolutions, delegates were appointed by the 
convention to represent the state in the Nashville convention and a 
committee of six, consisting of W. L. Sharkey, A. Hutchinson, Geo. 
Winchester, C. R. CUfton, W. R. Hill, John I. Guion, and E. C. 
Chambers, selected to prepare an address to the slave holding states.*' 

"The Address to the Southern States" issued by this committee 
expressed the determination of the South to preserve the Union, if 
it were possible, clearly set forth the dangers threatening the slave- 
holding states, resolutely maintained their right to resist those dan- 
gers, and unhesitatingly faced the fact that those states might, in 
the last resort, be driven to provide for the formation of a separate 
union to protect their liberties and rights.^ 

The last point in the address received much attention, during this 
controversy, as the first formal expression in Mississippi looking to 
secession as a final resort in defense of slavery. In regard to it, the 
address declared: 

Besides and beyond a popoular convention of the Southern States, with the view 
and the hope of arresting the course of aggression, and, if not practicable, then to 
concentrate the South in will, understanding, and action, the convention of Missis- 
sippi suggested, as the possible ultimate resort the call by the legislatures of the 



« Minority Report of the State Rights Convention, Mississippi Free Trader, 
October 6, 1849. 

The minoritv report was signed by three Whigs, Thomas A. Dabney, George 
Wmchester, and John I. Guion and to it was attached three separate agreements 
in the protest it contained. Above his signature, A. C. Bainer declared that he 
agreed in the protest fully, as to the impropriety of the resolution, without express- 
ing any opinion as to any abstract principle the protest might contain; S. H. John- 
son simply wrote that he also agreed m the above protest; and J. C. McAlpin 
asserted that he agreed to the above protest and objected to the legislature's passing 
any law indemnifying any slaveholder in emigrating to any of the new territories. 

^'^ Ibid., October 10, 1849. 

^ National Intelligencer, April 27, 1850. 

The address was signed by A. Hutchinson, G. Winchester, W. R. Hill, W. L. 
Sharkey, C. R. Clifton, John I. Guion, E. C. Wilkinson. Sharkey stated later 
that he did not write the address, but that it was written by a distinguished citizen 
of Mississippi. It is reasonable to infer that Anderson Hutchinson wrote it. 



68 Mississippi Historical Society. 

assailed States, of still more solemn conventions — such as should be regularly 
elected by the people of the States — to deliberate, speak, and act with all the sover- 
eign power of the people. Should, in the result, such conventions be called and 
meet, they may lead to a like regularly constituted convention of all the assailed 
States, to provide, in the last report, for their separate welfare by the formation 
of a compact and a union that wiU afford protection to their liberties and rights. 
In such a crisis, in the language of Mr. Madison, 'one spirit will animate and con- 
duct the whole.' ** 

Through the proceedings of the October convention of 1849 ^^'^ 
the address to the Southern states issued by its instructions, the 
citizens of Mississippi had, at length, declared the position of the 
state on the questions at issue between the sections. Furthermore, 
they had contributed greatly to the progress of the Southern movement 
and definitely committed the state of Mississippi to its support, by 
taking the step, so long planned by leaders of the South, of calling a 
convention of the slaveholding states to be held in Nashville, on the 
first Monday in the following June, to de\'ise and adopt some mode 
of resistance to aggressions against their rights, and by appointing 
delegates to represent the state in that convention. 

** National Intelligencer, April 27, 1850. 



CHAPTER rV. 

THE DEMANDS OF THE SOUTH 

The progress of sentiment in favor of resistance to the enactment 
by Congress of legislation opposed to slavery is indicated in Missis- 
sippi, as elsewhere in the South, in the state elections in the autumn of 
1849. The Democratic party had first advocated the Southern move- 
ment, and although the Whig party had been forced into line, the 
Democrats were more unanimous in their support of the movement 
and more extreme in their demands than the Whigs. The position 
of the two parties on the questions connected with slavery was made 
the main issue in the campaign and, in the elections, the people of 
Mississippi decided overwhelmingly in favor of that of the Demo- 
cratic party. Its candidate for governor, General Quitman, received 
almost 10,000 more votes than the Whig candidate, Luke Lea;^ an 
entire Democratic delegation was returned to Congress ;2 and an over- 
whelmingly Democratic majority was secured in both branches of 
the legislature.' 

The Mississippi Free Trader joyously greeted the Democratic 
victory as a rebuke of the submission of the Whig press and their 
candidates for Congress to the enactment of the Wihnot Proviso, 
and their surrender to the Free Soilers. It declared that if Luke 
Lea and the Whig candidates for Congress had been elected, the 



1 Senate Journal, 1850, 314-315- Quitman received 33,"7 votes; Lea, 22,^6. 
It is true that General Quitman was a strong opponent of the Whig candidate. 

The Whig state convention had recognized in him "the gallant soldier, the up- 
right gentleman, and an early and unflinching advocate of the payment of the 
Planters' and the Union Bank Bonds" and declared that "next to the election of 
their own nominee, they would hail his election as the best evidence of reform, both 
in taste and principles, of the Democratic party of the State of Mississippi. Reso- 
lutions of the Mississippi Taylor Convention, Natchez Weekly Caurier, July 24, 

2 Brown, Featherston, and Thompson were reelected and McWillie was elected 
m the 3rd Congressional district in place of Tompkins, a Whig. 

' In the Senate there were 20 Democrats and 10 Whigs; in the House 62 Demo- 
crats and 36 Whigs, Mississippi Free Trader, November 28, 1849. 

69 



70 Mississippi Historical Society. 

whole North would have resounded with rejoicing that Mississippi 
had refused to array herself with the South in defense of her honor 
and her rights and had declared in favor of abject submission to the 
will of a ruthless and tyrannical majority; but that the election of 
Quitman was a great Southern triumph by which Mississippi placed 
herself in " Bold Resistance to the Wilmot Proviso and Kindred 
Measures, at all Hazards and to the Last Extremity" and 
pronounced in tones of thunder her condemnation of the dynasty 
at Washington and her firm determination to support her rights to 
the last extremity.^ 

In the other Southern states, also, the growing feeling of alarm 
resulted in the triumph of the Democratic party on the slavery issues. 
In Kentucky, George A. Caldwell, a Democrat, defeated Aylett 
Buckner, a Whig, for Congress on the issue of a speech made by Buck- 
ner in the House, declaring the Wilmot proviso a proper measure.^ 
In Tennessee, according to the Nashville Union, the course of Taylor 
in placing in his cabinet two furious abolitionists and two others 
whose views coincided with the more moderate Free Soilers, and in 
throwing away his veto power by a pledge, forced his friends in Tennes- 
see to abandon him or accept submission to the Wilmot proviso, 
which they knew he would carry out in practice. Under the lead- 
ership of John Bell, they did the latter. Neil S. Brown, the Whig 
candidate for governor, staked his election on the issue tendered in 
the Democratic convention, of resistance to the Wilmot proviso and 
denounced resistance as leading to disunion. In the election Bell and 
Brown received a most signal rebuke and General William Trousdale 
was elected governor.^ In Georgia, the Whigs lost control of the 
legislature, which they had held since 1843, and, in November, sur- 
rendered the entire management of the state to the Democrats.'' In 
Alabama, the Whigs made no opposition to the election of Collier, 
the Democratic candidate for governor, and the Democrats captured 
the lower house of the legislature by a large majority and cut the 
Whigs' majority in the Senate down to one.^ 

* Mississippi Free Trader, November 10, 1849. 

' Neiv York Semi-weekly Tribune, August i, 1849. 

« Nashville Union, August 6, 1849. Quoted in the New York Semi-weekly Trib- 
une, August 18, 1849. 

' National Intelligencer, October 25, 1849. 

• New York Semi-weekly Tribune, November 24, 1849. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 71 

These successes of the Democratic party indicated, unmistakably, 
a progress of public sentiment in the South in favor of resistance, 
and a bolder tone was taken by the state administrations. Gov- 
ernor Trousdale of Tennessee, in his first message to the legislature, 
declared it to be the duty of Tennessee to proclaim to the North its un- 
alterable purpose to maintain its rights " at all hazards and to the last 
extremity."® Governor Towns of Georgia recommended to the legis- 
lature to make provision for the calling of a convention of the people 
if the Wilmot proviso or any act forbidding slavery or the slave trade 
in the District of Columbia were passed by Congress.^" The retiring 
governor of Alabama, also, made the same recommendation to the 
legislature of that state and, in addition, advised that provision should 
be made for the Southern states uniting in a general convention in 
such contingency.^^ 

The rising tide of alarm in the South, which was revealed in the 
success of the Democratic party and the tone of the new state adminis- 
trations, was due to the grave fears that the slaveholding states were 
coming more and more to entertain for their interests during the next 
session of Congress. The popular addresses and the resolutions of 
conventions with which nearly the whole press of the Northern states 
was teemmg forced the Southerners to discard, as utterly fallacious, 
the opinion that the abolitionists were a contemptible faction, few 
in number and powerless in influence. This and the still more alarm- 
ing fact that a large number of states, in the solemn form of 
legislative resolves, had instructed their representatives in Congress 
to press forward measures calculated, in the opinion of the South, 
to effect an entire change in the relations then existmg between the 
two distinctive classes of Southern population, thoroughly aroused 
the people of that section to the necessity of considermg the best 
means of protecting their domestic safety.^^ 

In addition. Southerners felt that they could no longer trust the 
Senate to protect their interests, for the defection of Benton of Mis- 
souri and Houston of Texas left the South in a mmority in that body 
and the senators from the free states who had hitherto sustained the 



» New York Semi-weekly Tribune, November 3, 1849. 
10 National Era, November 29, 1849. 
" New York Semi-weekly Tribune, November 28, 1849. 
^ Mississippi Free Trader, December 15, 1849. 



72 Mississippi Historical Society. 

South were for the most part constrained by instructions either to 
oppose Southern demands or to resign their places.^^ 

Nor could the South hope for any protection from the executive 
branch of the government. Taylor had, in advance, virtually repu- 
diated the exercise of the veto power, and, besides, the cabinet was 
under the dominance of the Northern Whigs and the influence of Se- 
ward was growing strong over the administration. In addition, soon 
after the beginning of his administration, Taylor had sent Thomas 
Butler King, of Georgia, to California to induce the people of that 
territory to draw up a state constitution and then petition Congress 
for admission into the Union; and it was generally believed that the 
influence of the administration would be used, during the next session 
of Congress, to secure the admission of California and New Mexico 
as states and by that circuitous mode gain the object of the "Provi- 
sorists' ' and cheat the South of its rights.'^* 

Influenced by all these reasons and, no doubt, also by the severe 
rebuke that had been administered to their party, in the state elections, 
for the backwardness of its position on the questions at issue between 
the two sections, the Whig members of Congress from the South were 
ready, at the beginning of the first session of the thirty-first Congress, 
to unite with the Southern Democrats in defense of Southern rights. 
The members of both parties were convinced that entire unanimity, 
strong determination, and skiUful parHamentary tactics would be 
necessary for the minority to win in the great parliamentary game 
they were to play that winter in Washington. Accordingly their 
first move was to set forth the position of the two parties and to pro- 
claim to their opponents their intention to act in concert in support 
of that position. This was done in the correspondence, published 
in the Washington Union, the organ of the Democratic party in Wash- 
ington, and the National Intelligencer, the Whig organ, between H. 
S. Foote a Democratic Senator from Mississippi, the state in which 
both parties had united in taking an advanced position in regard to 
the slavery issues and in which the Democrats had control, and 
Thomas L. Clingman, a Whig representative from North Carolina, 
a Southern state in which the Whigs still were dominant. 

" Mississippi Free Trader, December 15, 1849. 

" Letter from H. V. Johnson to Calhoun, Milledgeville, Ga., July 20, 1849, 
Calhoun Corresp., 1197; Letter from H. S. Foote to Calhoun, Warrenton, Sep- 
tember 25, 1849, Calhoun Corresp., 1204. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hear on. 73 

The object of Foote's letter to Clingman was to obtain from him, 
as "a prominent member of the Whig party," an expression of the 
probable action of his associates in the South if bills for the enact- 
ment of the Wilmot proviso and the abolition of slavery in the District 
of Columbia were passed in the next Congress, so that the North might 
be convinced that the South would not patiently acquiesce in either 
of those aggressions, and put a stop to the activity of the "agents 
of sedition" who were trampling "the sacred provisions of the con- 
stitution under foot" and embroiling "the Legislative councils of the 
nation in unseemingly and wicked controversy," and thus prevent 
the Union from being put in serious jeopardy.^^ 

Clingman replied to Foote that the exclusion of slaveholders, as 
such, from all the territories of the United States would be an entire 
revolution in the action of the government; that even if there should 
be power to divide the pubUc territory for convenience between the 
slaveholding and the non-slaveholding citizens of the United States, 
it was perfectly clear that there could be no right to exclude one class 
entirely, and that such an exclusion would be as great a violation of 
the constitution as the government could possibly commit. He added : 

In a word, if the Government should adopt the policy of excluding slaveholders, 
as such from all the territory of the United States, it would in substance and efifect 
cease to the the Government of the United States. While the form of the consti- 
tution might remain the same, its character would be essentially changed. 

This change, Clingman held, the Southern states owed it to the 
cause of constitutional liberty, to justice, and to their own honor to 
resist. 

With reference to the abolition of slavery in the District of Colum- 
bia, he declared that, if such an event were to occur at that time, it 
would not take place in obedience to the wishes of the citizens of the 
district and that Congress would, therefore, be guilty of an act of 
tyranny so insulting and so gross as to justify a withdrawal of confi- 
dence from such a government. 

Clingman declared that, if Congress should pass the Wilmot pro- 
viso or prohibit slavery in the District of Columbia, the union of both 
parties m Mississippi was a type of what would occur elsewhere; that 
he had no doubt but that over the entire South there would be a vastly 



1* Letter of Foote to T. L. Clingman, of North Carolina, November 10, 1849, 
Mississippi Free Trader, December 8, 1849. 



74 Mississippi Historical Society. 

greater unanimity than existed in the old thirteen slave states when 
they decided to resist British aggression; and that long before the 
struggle should come to the worst the South would present an un- 
broken front. ^® 

These letters, coming from a Democrat and a Whig, were hailed 
by the Washington Union as evidence of the attitude the slaveholding 
states would maintain if the Wilmot proviso were passed^'' and, with- 
out doubt, they reflected the sentiment of the two parties in regard 
to the slavery issues. The people of the South were united in the 
demand that Congress should not pass the Wilmot proviso or abolish 
slavery in the District of Columbia; and, though the public meetings, 
the press, and the political leaders were all careful to state that the 
object of the South in resisting these measures was to preserve the 
Union and the Constitution, the committee appointed by the October 
convention in Mississippi to draw up an address to the Southern 
states had not hesitated to declare that it might be necessary for 
the Southern states to provide, in the last resort, for their separate 
welfare by the formation of a compact and a union that would afford 
protection to their hberties and rights. Such was the public senti- 
ment of the South at the opening of Congress, December 3, 1849. 

There was every indication that that session of Congress would 
be a stormy one and there was no telling what would be the end. Cal- 
hoim declared: 

The South is more united than I ever knew it to be, and more bold and decided 
The North must give away, or there will be a rupture.^^ 

Both Alexander H. Stephens and Henry Clay bear testimony to 
the strength of the disunion sentiment among the Southern members 
of Congress.*^ The Southern Whigs, convinced that the Northern 
Whigs were determined to yield nothing and intended to carry aboli- 

" Letter of Clingman to Foote, November 13, 1849, Mississippi Free Trader, 
December 8, 1849. ^ ^ postscript, Clingman stated that the letter had been 
submitted to Senator Mangum, of North Carolina, and that he concurred fully in 
aU its general conclusions. 

" National Era, November 22, 1849. 

'* Letter of Calhoun to Thomas G. Clemson Washington, December 8, 1849. 
Calhoun Corresp. 776. 

^^ Letter of Alexander H. Stephens to his brother, December 5, 1849. Johnson 
and Browne, Life of A. H. Stephens, 239. ''I find," Stephens wrote, 'the feeling 
among Southern members for a dissolution of the Union — if anti-slavery [meas- 
ures] should be pressed to extremity — is becoming much more general than at 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hear on. 75 

tion anjrwhere they could by the constitution,^'' threw themselves 
whole-heartedly into the contest and together wdth the Southern 
Democrats sought to overcome the superiority of the North in numbers 
by their zeal, audacity, and skill in parhamentary tactics. 

The struggle between the two sections was precipitated immediately 
over the question of the organization of the House. In the caucus 
of the Whigs of the House to nominate a speaker, Toombs, of Georgia, 
offered a resolution declaring that Congress ought not to pass any 
law prohibiting slavery in the territories of California and New 
Mexico or abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia ;^^ and on 
the rejection of the resolution six Southern Whigs left the caucus.^ 

The Whigs nominated Winthrop, of Massachusetts, for speaker, 
and the Democrats put forward Howell Cobb, of Georgia. But the 
Free Soilers holding the balance of power in the House and re- 
fusing to vote for either, the balloting was continued for nearly three 
weeks without either candidate's obtaining a majority. The Demo- 
crats, at length, threw their votes to Brown, of Indiana, and it seemed 



first. Men are now beginning to talk of it seriously, who, twelve months ago, 
hardly permitted themselves to think of it." 

Letter of Clay to Leslie Combs, Washington, December 22, 1849. Private Cor- 
resp., 593. Clay wrote that "The feeling for dismiion among some intemperate 
Southern politicians, is stronger than I hoped or supposed it could be. The masses 
generally, even at the South, are, I believe sound; but they may become influenced 
and perverted." 

20 Letter of Stephens to his brother, December 3, 1849, Johnston and Browne, 
Life of A. H. Stephens, 238. 

21 The WTiig Caucus, Mississippi Free Trader, December 22, 1849. 

Toombs wrote to J. J. Crittenden, April 25, 1850, "When I came to Washington, 
I found the whole Whig party expecting to pass the proviso, and that Taylor 
would not veto it, and thereby the Whig party of the North were to be built up at 
the expense of the Northern Democracy, who from political and party consid- 
erations, had stood quasi opposed to the proviso. I saw General Taylor and 
talked fully with him, and while he stated he had given and would give no pledges 
either way about the proviso, he gave me clearly to understand that if it was passed 
he would sign it. My course became instantly fixed. I would not hesitate to 
oppose the proviso, even to the extent of a dissolution of the Union. I could not 
for a moment regard any party considerations in the treatment of the question. I 
therefore determined to put the test to the Whig party and abandon its organi- 
zarion upon its refusal. Coleman, Life of John J. Crittenden, I, 365. 

22 Letter of Stephens to his brother, December 2, 1849- Johnston and Browne, 
Life of A. H. Stephens, 237; National Era, December 13, 1849- ^ . „ ,, . 

According to the Natimtal Era these were Stephens, Toombs, CabeU, Martm, 
Hilliard, and Owens. Stephens says there were some others. In giving an account 
of the meeting, Stephens declared that his Southern blood and feelings were up, 
and that he felt as if he were prepared to fight at aU hazards and to the last extrem- 
ity in vindication of the honor and the rights of the South. 



76 Mississippi Historical Society. 

certain that he would be elected; but the Southern representatives 
discovered that he had made terms with the Free Soilers and indig- 
nantly rejected him. During the stormy debate that followed, Toombs 
made his oft-quoted speech, avowing that, if Congress by its legisla- 
tion sought to drive the South from the territories of California and 
New Mexico and to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, he 
was for disunion and, if his physical courage were equal to the main- 
tenance of his convictions of right and duty, he would devote all he 
was and all he had on earth to its consummation .^^ This speech was 
loudly applauded together with that of Stephens in which he announced 
his concurrence in every word of Toombs and declared the Union 
dissolved from the day in which aggression was consummated upon 
any section of the country .^^ Colcock, of South CaroUna, in his turn, 
added to the excitement by pledging himself, if any bill should be 
passed at that Congress abolishing slavery in the District of Colum- 
bia or incorporating the Wilmot proviso in any form, to introduce a 
resolution in the House "declaring in terms, that this Union ought to 
be dissolved. ""^^ 

According to Stephens, the "great row" gotten up by him and 
Toombs shook the country from one end to the other and the North- 
ern Whigs, "feehng great pressure from home, and fearing they would 
be compelled to yield their sentiments and come to a full and final 
settlement of the question, caved in and let Cobb be elected speaker. "^^ 
However that was, after scenes of the wildest disorder, the House 
agreed to the election of a speaker by a pluraUty vote and Cobb was 
elected on December 23. The South had won the first move in the 
game and also made sure the committees of the House would be organ- 
ized in a way favorable to its interests. 

As soon as the speakership was settled, the slavery question was 
introduced into Congress in the one form in regard to which the 
people of the South had not been able to come to an agreement as to 
their poUcy. In his message, December 24, 1849, the president in- 
formed Congress that, from his latest advices, he had reason to suppose 

** Cong. Globe, 31 Cong, i Sess., 28. 

^ Ibid., 29. 

« Ibid. 

^* Letter from Stephens to his brother Linton, April 15, 1850. Waddell, Bio- 
graphical Sketch of Linton Stephens, 100. Quoted in Von Hoist, Constitutional 
History of the United States lU, 473. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hear on. 77 

that CaUfornia had framed a state constitution and would shortly 
apply for admission into the Union ; and recommended its application 
to the favorable consideration of Congress.^' As it was well known 
that the constitution which California had formed excluded slavery, 
the Southern members of Congress were, thus, at the very beginning 
of the session, brought face to face with the question of what should 
be their policy with reference to the exclusion of slavery from Cali- 
fornia by its admission into the Union as a free state.^* 

Though the application of California for admission into the Union 
imder a constitution excluding slavery had been foreseen since the 
early summer, no Southern state had declared its position on the 
question and what should be the policy of its members of Congress 
in regard to it. The subject, as has been seen, was raised in the Oc- 
tober convention in Mississippi; but, the sentiment of the convention 
not being unanimous, no action was taken. Therefore, the members 
of Congress from Mississippi, in common with those from other 
Southern states, turned to their state for an expression of its will 
on this question on which it had not yet spoken. 

Both the senators and all the representatives from Mississippi, 
in a letter to Governor Quitman, advised him and, through him, 
their constituents, that, in their opinion, CaUfornia would be admitted 
into the Union during that session of Congress. They regarded, so 
they declared, the proposition to admit California as a state, under 
all the circumstances of her application, as an attempt to adopt the 
Wilmot proviso in another form; and desired, through the governor, 
to submit to the people and to the legislature of the state the smgle 
fact that California would most likely obtain admission into the 
Union with her constitutional prohibition of slavery and to ask for 
such expressions of opinion by the legislature, the governor, and, if 
possible, the people, as would clearly indicate the course that Missis- 
sippi would deem it her duty to pursue in the new emergency .^^ 

The legislature of Mississippi had assembled m the beginnmg of 



" Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., i Sess., 71. . , , ,• j . 

28 Taylor also declared that the people of New Mexico, he believed, at no very 
distant period, would present themselves for admission into the Union as a state 
and advised Congress to await their action. t,u 1 *+ 

29 Claiborne, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, 11, 34- Ihe letter 
was dated Washington, January 21, 1850 and signed Jeff. Davis, H. b. J?oote, J. 
Thompson, W. S. Featherston, Wm. M'WiUie, A. G. Brown. 



78 Mississippi Historical Society. 

January in its regular biennial session and the first expression of that 
body on the issues between the North and the South, since those 
issues had reached a real crisis, was awaited wdth interest. As both 
houses were overwhelmingly Democratic, it was to be expected that 
the legislature would voice the will of that part of the state that 
favored a more extreme position on Southern rights. Moreover the 
retiring governor, J. W. Matthews, in his message to the legislature, 
in submitting the resolutions of the legislatures of the several states 
and also the proceedings of the convention of the citizens of Mississippi 
on the subject of slavery, sought to induce that body to occupy an 
advanced position on that question. 

He defended the doctrine that Congress was bound to protect the 
property of the citizens of the states in the territories, and denied 
the constitutionality of the Wilmot proviso.^" But he declared that 
recent developments had convinced him that the passage of the 
Wilmot pro\dso was not seriously intended. From a careful atten- 
tion to the California movement from its inception to its consumma- 
tion, he was convinced that it was a scheme to avoid the responsibil- 
ity of openly meeting the question of the prohibition of slavery in 
the territories by the direct passage of the Wilmot proviso by Congress; 
and to his judgment that scheme was more abhorrent to the South 
than an open and direct adoption of the proviso, for to fraud and in- 
justice it added the crimes of hypocrisy and deceit. 

As to the demands the South should make in regard to the terri- 
tories. Governor Matthews held that, the non-slaveholding states 
having refused to abide by the terms of the Missouri compromise, 
the slave states were absolved from the observance of its stipulations, 
and should, at once, fall back on their original constitutional rights, 
by which they held an equal right with all the citizens of the United 
States to remove with their property to any of the territories of the 

^° " No proposition to my mind is more clear," Governor Matthews declared, 
"than that the Wilmot Proviso and its kindred measures are without even the 
shadow of constitutional authority on the part of Congress; and that a more impoli- 
tic, unjust and iniquitous measure was never presented for the consideration of 
any legislative body. Nothing but an unchastened thirst for power, forgetful of 
moral and constitutional obligation — a wild fanaticism, uncontrolled by reason, 
or an utter ignorance of the principles of our government, it appears to me, could 
induce any man, or set of men, to seriously entertain measures so monstrous." Mes- 
sage of Governor Matthews to the Legislature, January 7, 1850, Senate Journal, 
1850, 23. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hear on. 79 

United States and settle therein; and that they should never again 
consent to any restriction to the extension of their institutions in any 
portion of the territories of the Union. He declared: 

Unless we come to this determination and maintain it with imyielding firmness' 
I am convinced that the days of this glorious Union are numbered. The spirit of 
fanaticism and aggression will never be stayed by compromise; but it will continue 
its work of destruction, until the sacred ties which have heretofore bound us together 
in one great and glorious brotherhood, shall be rent asunder. 

Finally he recommended that, in the event of the adoption of the 
Wilmot proviso by Congress, the abolition of slavery in the District 
of Columbia, the prohibition of the commerce in slaves between the 
states, or — that which the October convention had failed to recom- 
mend — "the admission of CaUfornia into the Union by virtue of her 
late pretended constitution," the governor should be authorized to 
order an election of delegates, from all the coimties in the state, to 
a convention, to take into consideration the mode and measure of 
redress, and to adopt such measures for their future security as the 
crisis might demand.^^ 

The incoming governor, John A. Quitman, in his inaugural address 
did not follow up the recommendations of Governor Matthews, but 
contented himself with asserting the doctrines of state sovereignty 
and of the nature of the federal government that had found such 
scanty support in Mississippi when he first announced them in the 
NuUification controversy, and with defending the institution of slav- 
ery .^2 jje declared: 

The Members of our national imion consist of equal co-ordinate sovereignties, 
whose interest, for good or for evil, may be affected by the federal government. 
They are not only entitled to exercise a watchful care over its proceedings, but when 
the Constitution, or the reserved rights of the states, or the people are threatened, 
upon the state governments especially devolves the duty of taking proper measures 
to defend the one and protect the other. 

In regard to slavery, he asserted that the people of Mississippi did 



^1 Message of Governor J. W. Matthews to the Legislature, January 7, 1850, 
Senate Journal, 1850, 23-28. 

*2 The Mississippi Free Trader, January 30, 1850, declared, with reference to 
the difference in the state of feeling in the South in 1829 and in 1850, that, "the 
circumstances are widely different. However exciting the question of a high tariff 
may have been at that time, it was a question not at all similar to the one now in 
agitation from one end of the Union to the other. That did but touch our pockets, 
but this involves the very foundations of Society and property amongst us." 



8o Mississippi Historical Society. 

not regard it as an evil,^ but that, on the contrary, they thought that 
their prosperity, their happiness, their very poUtical existence, were 
inseparably connected "with the institution, that they had a right to 
it both above and under the constitution of the United States and 
that they could not and would not give up that right. Measures 
introduced into Congress, he declared, too plainly spoke the deliber- 
ate intention of their instigators to wage a war of extermination against 
this most valued right; and, whether they originated in fanaticism, 
affected philanthropy, or calculations of political power, they could 
have no other object than the ultimate destruction of the domestic 
institutions of the South or the dissolution of the Union. To those 
destructive measures, the people of Mississippi, of all parties, assem- 
bled in convention, had solemnly declared that they could not and 
would not submit. Quitman declared: 

They cherish the Union constituted by the wisdom of our fathers; they will 
defend the Constitution, which established and alone maintains that Union, but 
they have no love or veneration for any other union than that which is written and 
defined in the constitution. They are not to be deceived and robbed of their con- 
stitutional rights by men who, uttering hollow professions of attachment to the 
Union, are deliberately severing the ties that bind us together. 

The people of Mississippi, he asserted, had taken their stand and 
he did not doubt but that their representatives would maintain it 
by providing means to meet every probable contingency.^ 

The legislature, on the report of the joint standing committee 
on federal and state relations, to which had been referred as much of 
the governor's message as related to the subject of slavery and the 
agitation of it, adopted a series of resolutions setting forth its position 
on those subjects. 

In the preamble to these resolutions, the legislature expressed a 
grave fear that the government of the Union would before long be 

'^ In the Free Trader, of all places, there is a contradiction of this assertion of 
Quitman's. "The evil, the wrong of slavery is admitted by everj^ enlightened 
man in the Union," the Free Trader declares, "but," it continues, "in the States 
where the institution prevails it is the bounden duty of every good citizen, if he 
would preserve society from the inroads of a domestic enemy — if he does not look 
to the abolition of negro bondage, to see that no false philanthropy shall strike a 
single rivet from the chains of the slave. As Mr. Cobb lately exclaimed, 'Let the 
institution of slavery be preserved sacred.' " Editorial in the Mississippi Free 
Trader, January 19, 1850. 

^ Inaugural Address of Governor John A. Quitman delivered before both houses 
of the Mississippi Legislature, January 10, 1850. Claiborne, Life and Correspond- 
ence of John A. Quitman, II, 21-24. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hear on. 81 

laid in ruins by the imholy lust for power that had induced the non- 
slaveholding states to endeavor to fasten upon the slaveholding states 
a system of legislation in regard to their peculiar domestic relations, 
as fatal to their prosperity and happiness as it was unjust and con- 
trary to the principles and provisions of the constitution. In defend- 
ing slavery, it denied that it was a moral or political evil, declared 
that it was an element of prosperity and happiness both to the masters 
and to the slaves, and asserted that if it were abolished the fair and 
blooming fields of the South would be converted into barren heaths, 
their high-souled and chivalrous proprietors into abject dependents, 
and the happy and contented slaves into squalid and degraded ob- 
jects of misery and wretchedness. Finally, it declared that the time 
had come for the Southern states to act, that they had remonstrated 
and forborne until forbearance was no longer a virtue, and that they 
must prepare to act with resolution, firmness, and imity. 

In the series of resolutions that followed, the legislature reaffirmed 
the resolutions of the October convention setting forth the position 
of Mississippi on the issues connected with slavery and calling a con- 
vention of the Southern states; and, in addition, declared it to be the 
duty of Congress to provide the means of enforcing in the territories 
"the guarantees of the constitution of the United States in reference 
to the property of citizens of any of the states removing to any of 
said territories with the same, without distinction or limitation." 

That the legislature was in earnest when it declared that the South- 
ern states "must prepare to act,'' it proved by appropriating the sum 
of $220,000; and placing $20,000 of it at the disposal of the governor 
to be used in defraying the expenses of delegates to the Nashville 
convention and for convening the legislature of the state so soon, 
as in his estimation, the safety of the South required the separate 
or united action of the slaveholding states; and reserving the fur- 
ther sum of $200,000 in the treasury, subject to the control of the 
legislature, "to be used, if necessary, in the adoption of necessary 
measures for protecting the constitutional and sovereign rights of 
the states, in the event of the passage by the Congress of the United 
States and the approval by the President, of any bill containing the 
Wilmot proviso, applicable to any of the territories of the United 
States; or of any law abolishing slavery in any state or territory, or 
in the District of Columbia, or the slave trade between said District 
and any of the States." 



82 Mississippi Historical Society. 

The legislature further made provision for the assembling by the 
governor of a convention of the people of the state in the event of the 
passage by the Congress of the United States of any of the measures 
enumerated in the resolutions and such action thereon by the Nash- 
ville convention as should, in the opinion of the legislature, render a 
convention of the people necessary for the assertion and defense of 
their sovereign and constitutional rights. 

Also, in addition to reaflSrming the resolutions of the October con- 
vention calling a convention of the slaveholding states to meet at 
Nashville on the first Monday in June, the legislature, disregarding 
the selection of delegates to that convention by the October con- 
vention, gave an oflficial character to the Nashville convention by 
resolving that the delegates from Mississippi should be elected by 
the legislature itself and paid from the state treasury .^^ Finally, 
the legislature pledged the state of Mississippi to stand by and 
sustain her sister states of the South in whatever course of action 
they might determine on in the Nashville convention.^® 

In these resolutions, the Democratic legislature of Mississippi had 
taken its position on the demands of the October convention, that 
Congress should not pass any law interfering with slavery in the 
states, forbidding the interstate slave trade, abolishing slavery in 
the District of Columbia, or prohibiting the introduction of slaves 
into the territories of the United States; and had solemnly declared 
that the state of Mississippi would not submit to the passage of any 
of those acts. Also, following the example of the October convention, 
it had referred the question of the modes and measures of resistance 
to the Nashville convention and a convention of the state to be called, 
if it should be necessary, for the assertion and defense of the sovereign 
rights of the people of the state. 

The failure of the legislature to include in its resolutions the demand 

'* These delegates were chosen March 6, over the protest of twenty-seven of the 
Whig members of the legislature, who claimed the legislature had no power to 
appoint delegates to the Nashville convention. They are as follows: State at 
large: W. L. Sharkey (W), A. M. Clayton (D), S. S. Boyd (W), C. P. Smith (D); 
first congressional district, Jos. W. Matthews (D), Thos J. Word (W); second con- 
gressional district, G. F. Neill (D), G. H. Young (W) ; third congressional district, 
Wm. R. White (W), J. J. Pettus (D); fourth congressional district, J. J. McRae 
(!)), T. J. Stewart (W). Natchez Weelky Courier, March 20, 1850. 

^^ Report of the Joint Select Committee on Federal and State Relations, ap- 
proved March 6, 1850. Laws of the State of Mississippi, 1850, 522-526. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 83 

that California should not be admitted into the Union under its 
"pretended constitution" is evidence that the Democratic party in 
Mississippi was not yet ready to commit itself to a policy of resistance 
to that measure. For the silence of the resolutions in regard to the 
admission was not undersigned, since the position of the state con- 
cerning it had been discussed in the October convention, and Gover- 
nor Matthews had earnestly recommended the legislature to take a 
determined stand in opposition to it, and the policy of the South in 
regard to it was the most important question before that section and 
the one on which it had not expressed its will and on which hinged the 
unanimity of the South in its efforts to carry through its demands. 

But the legislature of Mississippi did not escape the expression of 
an opinion as to the course that Mississippi should pursue with regard 
to this important question. The letter of the members of Congress 
from Mississippi to Governor Quitman in regard to the admission of 
California put the question squarely before that body and it had to 
give some response, or, by its silence, tacitly declare that it did not 
agree with the delegates in Congress in their view concerning the 
admission of California and thus administer a rebuke to them for 
their position on that question. As all the members of Congress 
from Mississippi were important members of the party in control 
of both branches of the legislature, it was not likely that that body 
would adopt the latter policy; the only question was how far would 
it go in sanctioning their views. 

The members of Congress had asserted that they regarded "the 
proposition to admit California as a state, under all the circumstances 
of her application, as an attempt to adopt the Wilmot proviso in 
another form' ' and evidently desired the legislature to take the same 
position in regard to the former measure as it had in regard to the lat- 
ter. In considering the question, the members of the legislature were 
confronted by the doctrine set forth by Calhoun in his resolutions of 
February 17, 1847, and generally accepted in the South, i. e., that the 
citizens of a territory in framing a state constitution have a right to 
engraft on it any principle whatever, provided the form of govern- 
ment is republican and the constitution conflicts in nothing with the 
constitution of the United States, and that Congress has no right to 
impose any other conditions. The legislature admitted this doctrine 
and, in seeking a basis for opposition to the admission of California, 



84 Mississippi Historical Society. 

turned to the charges that the constitution of Cahfornia was the re- 
sult of a false and unjust policy on the part of the government of the 
United States and of the use of fraud and improper influence to stifle 
a full and fair expression of opinion by the citizens of California. 
But the utmost action that the legislature would take, was to instruct 
the senators and the representatives in Congress that, if they were 
satisfied from reliable evidence that these charges were true, they 
should, to the extent of their ability, resist the admission of California 
by all honorable and constitutional means; and to refer the whole 
question of the admission of California to the NashviUe convention 
without any recommendation whatever.^'^ 

But some of the members of the Mississippi legislature were unwill- 
ing to support this evasive position with reference to the admission 
of California; and, in the minority report of the joint committee on 
federal and state relations, five prominent Whigs came out squarely 
in support of the administration in its plan for the admission of Cali- 
fornia. Not being Democrats, they did not hesitate to say, in so 
many words, that they could not regard the admission of California 
as a state with a constitution fairly formed by her citizens, as the 
Wilmot proviso in another form, although slavery might be excluded 
by constitutional prohibition. They declared that, although they 
ardently desired that California should come into the Union as a 
slave state, yet, if, in the opinion of Congress, the proper judge of 
such facts, the people of California had declared otherwise and 
formed a constitution and state government, for themselves, in ac- 
cordance with the constitution of the United States, without any 
fraud or improper or undue influence in the act or manner of its 
formation, they would acquiesce in the right of the people of that 
country to form their own constitution as they might desire. 

They reiterated the demands of the October convention, but de- 
clared they saw no good reason to oppose the admission of California 
as a state with a constitution regulating its own domestic institutions, 
at as early a day as it could be admitted in accordance with the re- 
quirements of the constitution of the United States and the usages 
of the government in similar cases. ^^ 

'' Laws of the State of Mississippi, 1850, 526-528. 

^' Minority Report of the Joint Committee on Federal Relations, February 27, 
1850, Senate Journal, 1850, 612-613. This report was made by Walter Brooke 
and assented to by Alcorn, Sharkey, Tait, and White. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 85 

And so the letter from the senators and the representatives in Con- 
gress from Mississippi instead of inducing the legislature of their 
state to take a position in regard to California that would influence 
the Southern delegates in Congress to unite in demanding that Cali- 
fornia should not be admitted into the Union under the constitution 
it had formed, and that would aid them in securing that demand by- 
proving to the country that Mississippi, at least, was determined to 
support it, served rather to defeat their objects by revealing the real 
divisions in the state in regard to that most important question. 

The expressions of opinion by the people, which the members of 
Congress had requested in their letter to Governor Quitman, revealed 
further the divisions in the pubHc sentiment of Mississippi in regard 
to the admission of California. The attitude of the press of the two 
parties is set forth with sufficient clearness by the organs of those 
parties in Natchez. The Free Trader, the Democratic organ, did not 
hesitate to support the charges of fraud and undue influence in the 
election of members of the constitutional convention of California, 
and asserted that the administration had, through its officers and 
agents, secretly managed to sell California to the abolitionists. It 
urged the South to stand firm and refuse the admission of California 
that year, for by another year the really permanent settlers in Cali- 
fornia, who, according to all the laws that govern population, would 
inevitably be Southern, would have a chance to express their senti- 
ments and be heard.^^ 

The Natchez Courier, on the contrary, declared that the rejection 
of the constitution of California by Congress would not cause that 
territory to become peopled by slaves and slave owners, nor would it 
render New Mexico slave territory, for that event was even more 
improbable than that such might be the case in California. How im- 
possible it was to estabUsh slavery in the territory acquired from Mex- 
ico, theCourier sought to prove by pointmg out that, even if a Southern 
Confederacy were estabUshed by a peaceable secession of the slave 
from the free states, the free states having a navy and a marine, 
would at once take possession of the territories while the South 
would have to create both before it could even make the attempt. 
The Courier concludes: 



" Mississippi Free Trader, February 20, 1850. 



86 Mississippi Historical Society, 

It is a bitter pill — one that we hate to swallow — to see the acquired territor>' 
come into the Union as free states. Could we make tham slave states, it should 
be done. But, believing the matter to be inevitable, we cannot, and will not sit 
still, and see Gen. Taylor assailed by men whose public course has produced the 
very state of things (and they were warned in time) at which they are now growling 
at so terrible a rate.'*" 

In general, in the public meetings in which the Democrats were in 
control, the resolutions adopted took, in regard to the admission of 
California, the position of the legislature in its instructions to the 
members of Congress with reference to that question;*^ but some went 
to the extent of declaring, with their delegates in Congress, that they 
regarded the attempt to admit CaUfornia then being made in Congress, 
as an effort to pass the Wilmot proviso in another and far more odious 
form.'*^ 

The Whigs, for the most part, supported the minority report of the 
joint committee on federal relations.*' In a meeting, at the state 
capital, February 15, 1850, of the "Friends of General Taylor and 
the Union' ' under the leadership of prominent Whigs in both houses 
of the legislature, resolutions were adopted declaring that it was the 
"well defined opinion" of the meeting "that the people of Mississippi 
would sustain their Senators and Representatives in aiding to carry 
out the policy of the President in reference to the admission of Cali- 
fornia into the Union, as unfolded in his admirable message to Con- 
gress on the subject," and expressing an abiding confidence in the de- 
votion of the people of Mississippi to the constitution and the Union 
and the assurance that the admission of CaUfornia was not such an 
emergency as would cause them to think for a moment of pursuing 
any course calculated to endanger either the one or the other.** 

*" Natchez Weekly Courier, February 19, 1850. 

*^ Southern Meeting in Jackson, February 19, 1850, of citizens and strangers 
opposed to the admission of California, with its anti-slavery constitution. Missis- 
sippi Free Trader, March 6, 1850. 

Governor Quitman presided over the meeting and John I. Guion, a Whig, was 
chairman of the committee on resolutions. 

*2 Public Meeting at Raymond, Hinds county, April 8, 1850. Ibid., May 4, 1850. 

*^ Resolutions of a Meeting in Natchez, Natchez Weekly Cotirier, March 8, 1850. 

** Ibid., February 26, 1850. 

The committee that drew up the resolutions adopted by this meeting were, for 
the most part, members of the legislature. Their names are as follows: Gen. 
Peter B. Starke, of Bolivar; Luke Lea, of Hinds; E. S. Fisher, of Yalobusha; Walter 
Brooke, of Holmes; W. C. Harper, of Rankin; James M. Tait, of De Soto; J. W. 
Watson, of Marshall, A. E. Reynolds, of Tishomingo; L. M. Garrett, of Madison; 
Dr. Lsaac V. Hodges, of Smith; A. K. Farrar, of Adams; Roderick Seal, of Harri- 
son; George H. Foote, of Noxubee; and Gustavus H. Wilcox, of Jefferson. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 87 

But Judge Winchester, in a speech before a meeting in Natchez, 
March 9, 1850, without doubt expressed the real sentiment of many, 
both Whigs and Democrats, in regard to the admission of California. 
He asserted that he believed that the South was right in objecting 
to the admission of California as a free state and in trying to prevent 
it, imtil she received solemn and sufficient security that her rights, 
secured to her by the constitution, should be respected by the free 
states and no longer trampled on; that the opposition to the admis- 
sion of California was the only rod the South held over the North to 
compel it to recognize her just and lawful claims; and that, if that were 
thrown into Northern hands, the South would be completely in 
their power whatever might be the fanaticism that might be domi- 
nant. He admitted that California was legally entitled to admission, 
but declared that the unconditional admission of one free state should 
not be permitted to the injury of fifteen slaveholding states already 
in the Union .^^ 

In all these public meetings, neither the Whigs nor the Democrats 
showed any weakening in their support of the demands of the Octo- 
ber convention. On the contrary, the more vehemently they opposed 
including among those demands the rejection by Congress of the appli- 
cation of California for admission into the Union under her existing 
constitution, the more emphatically they seemed to think it neces- 
sary to declare their support of them. In addition, in some of the 
meetings the demand for the passage by Congress of a more effect- 
ive fugitive slave law was added to those of the October convention .^^ 

In the resolutions and other expressions of opinion in regard to the 
demands of the South with reference to the issues involved in the 



« Proceedings of the Whig rally in Natchez, March 9, 1850, Mississippi Free 
Trader, March 13, 1850. 

The resolutions of a public meeting of the people of Lafayette county, April 30, 
voice this same opinion in regard to the admission of California by declaring "That 
it is our opinion California ought not under any circumstances to be admitted into 
the Union as a non-slaveholding state, unless with such admission the rights of 
the South are amply secured on the slavery question in such a manner as etlec- 
tually to guard agamst future aggressions of the North and restore quiet to the 
public mind, for the South will not be satisfied with less than that and hardly with 
that." The Organizer, May 6, 1850. . . . „ „ , , , , 

^« The Whig Rally in Natchez, March 9, 1850, Mississippi Free Trader, March 
13, 1850; Rally for the Union in Jefferson county, April i, 1850, Ibid., April 3, 1850; 
Public Meeting of the People of Lafayette County, April 30, 1850. The Organ- 
izer, May 6; 1850. 



88 Mississippi Historical Society. 

controversy over slavery, the attitude of the state toward the Union 
is revealed. There was a unanimous agreement in the declaration 
of the October convention that the people of Mississippi continued 
to entertain a devoted and cherished attachment to the Union, but 
that they desired to have it as it was formed and not as an engine of 
oppression.'*^ Some added that the people of the state had no love 
or veneration for any other Union than that which was defined in 
the constitution;** and others went so far as to declare that, without 
the constitution, they considered it a curse."** All agreed, however, 
with Jefferson Davis, that Mississippians would never abandon the 
Union, with the constitution.^'^ But many were convinced that the 
spirit of fanaticism and aggression in the North would never be 
stayed until the guarantees of the constitution on the subject of sla- 
very were broken and that the people of the South should not and 
would not submit to such encroachment on their rights, the preser- 
vation of which involved not simply their prosperity and happiness 
but their very existence, and entertained grave fears for the Union.^^ 
Declarations were made, it is true, expressing the determination of 
the people of the state to secure their rights in the Union, if they could, 
but out of the Union, if they must;^^ but, with few exceptions, the 

*^ Resolutions of the legislature of Mississippi appointing delegates to the Nash- 
ville convention, Laws of the State of Mississippi, 1850, 522-526. 

■** Inaugural Address of Governor John A. Quitman, January 10, 1850, Clai- 
borne, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, II, 24. 

*' Speech of Jefiferson Davis, Cong. Globe, 31 Cong, i Sess., 137, January 10, 
1850. 

^Ubid. 

" Message of Governor Matthews to the Mississippi Legislature, January 7, 
1850. Sefiate Journal, 1850, 23-28; Report of the Joint Committee of the Legis- 
lature on State and Federal Relations, Mississippi Free Trader, January 30, 1850; 
Rally for the Union in Jefferson County, Mississippi Free Trader, April 3, 1850. 

^^The Vicksburg Sentinel declared, March 12, 1850: "The South cherishes the 
Union of these States with a patriotic devotion. It is honorable to the patriotism 
and creditable to the intelligence of our people, that they look upon the severance 
of the bond of Union which binds together this mighty Republic, with all its prob- 
ably disastrous and bloody consequences, with no composure of feeling and though 
they are determined to require of the free States due security for our rights under 
the constitution, they would avoid the last resort with a reluctance which no lan- 
guage can express." 

"The South has remonstrated, argued, entreated and demanded, in vain. They 
have been met with reckless, careless, insulting innovations and trespasses upon 
their rights and will submit to them no longer. They desire to live under the Fed- 
eral constitution, in its true and correct version, or else they will secede and form 
one for themselves under which they can enjoy their rights and privileges." 

"The citizens of Hinds county in a public meeting held, without distinction of 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 89 

citizens of the state thought, with Judge Winchester, that the disso- 
lution of the Union was not necessary to secure their rights.^* The 
abiUty of the South to protect its rights within the Union had not 
yet been tested and they believed that, by perfect unanimity and cor- 
dial co-operation among the slave states in presenting their demands, 
they could secure all that the constitution held out to them and pre- 
serve both their rights and the Union. The Vicksburg Sentinel, 
April 2, 1850, denied there was a disunionist in the South and de- 
clared that no one could point out one. 

During these months when Mississippi was formulating its position 
on the measures before Congress affecting slavery, the other Southern 
States were also concerned with the same problem and their action 
in regard to it greatly affected that of Mississippi and was in turn 
influenced by it. The legislature of Alabama declared that Alabama 
would never submit to the passage by Congress of the Wimot proviso 
or any similar act.^ That of Maryland opposed the aboUtion of 
slavery in the District of Columbia, asserted that Congress had no 
power to exclude slavery from any of the territories of the United 
States, and declared that the state of Maryland would take her posi- 
tion with her Southern sisters in the maintenance of the constitution 
with all its compromises and the vindication of her own just rights.^* 
The Virginia assembly made provision for the calling of a convention 
of the state in the event of the passage by Congress of the Wilmot 
proviso, or an act prohibiting slavery in the District of Columbia, 
or the slave trade between the states.^® But in none of these states 
did the legislature proclaim its attitude toward the admission of Cali- 
fornia as a state. 

The legislature of Tennessee, however, after having passed, by a 
strict party vote, a resolution solemnly asserting that the state of Ten- 
party, at Raymond, April 8, 1850, asserted: "Our rights under the constitution we 
cannot consent shall be encroached upon These rights we have de- 
termined, as far as this meeting can have a voice in the matter, to protect in the 
Union, if we can— out of the Union if we must. 'Come what will, should it cost 
every drop of blood and every cent of property we must defend ourselves'— The 
Union is dear to us— freedom and our constitutional rights are dearer." Mtssts- 
sippi Free Trader, May 4, 1850. „ . „ „ . xt . 1. t»t u o 

" Speech of Judge Winchester before the Whig Rally in Natchez, March 9, 1850, 
Mississippi Free Trader, March 13, 1850. 

" Du Bose, The Life and Times of William' Lowndes Yancey, 241. 

^ National Intelligencer, January 26, 1850. 

^National Era, February 21, 1850. 



Qo Mississippi Historical Society. 

nessee would not submit to the passage of the Wilmot proviso, declared 
in regard to California, that the whole matter should undergo a rigid 
scrutiny, but that it would not try to prescribe any rule of action/' 
Finally, the legislature of Georgia resolved that it would be the 
immediate and imperative duty of Georgia to meet in convention to 
consider redress in any of five contingencies: the passage of the Wilmot 
proviso, the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, the pro- 
hibition of the slave trade between the states, the continued refusal 
of the non-slave states to deliver up fugitive slaves as prescribed in 
the constitution, or the admission of California with its pretended 
constitution.^^ A Southern state had, at length, included the ad- 
mission of California with the measures against slavery that would 
require redress. But the action of the Georgia legislature with refer- 
ence to California was weakened by the fact that the Whig members 
of that body, although they had concurred in the other resolutions, 
had resisted the one in regard to California, as violating the funda- 
mental state rights principle that had been proclaimed by Calhoun 
in 1847, and maintained by the Whig party for years.^^ 

It is evident that, in the early months of 1850, the majority of the 
people of the South, as well as the people of Mississippi, were united 
in the demand that Congress should not enact the Wilmot proviso, 
abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, or prohibit the slave 
trade between the states and in the determination to resist those 
measures if they were passed. But it is even more evident that 
neither Mississippi nor the South as a whole could be united in the 
demand that California should not be admitted into the Union under 
the constitution it had drawn up. Public sentiment would support 
the members of Congress only in their using all "honorable and con- 
stitutional means" to limit the southern boundary of California to 
36° 30' and in their making the most out of the admission of Cali- 
fornia to force concessions from the North in regard to the other 
questions at issue between the two sections.^" 

^''National Era, Febuary 21, 1850. 

'* Ibid., New York Semi-weekly Tribune, March 30, 1850. 

"Quotation from the Richmond Whig in the National Era, February 21, 1850. 
^° Ibid.. Speech of Judge Winchester in Natchez, March 9, 1850, Mississippi 
Free Trader. March 13, 1850. 



CHAPTER V. 

THE FORMATION OF THE COMPROMISE. 

While Mississippi and the other Southern states were formulating 
the demands of the South with reference to the action that should 
be taken by Congress in regard to the questions connected with sla- 
very, the struggle in that body over these issues was being waged with 
fierce intensity by the delegates from the two sections. The great 
leaders of the country were in the Senate, where Calhoun, Clay, 
Webster, Benton, and Cass represented the generation under which 
the issues mvolved in slavery had grown acute, and Davis, Douglas, 
and Seward the younger generation that would have to grapple with 
those issues in the last great crisis. Therefore, to the Senate, the 
country looked for a solution of its difi&culties and in that body the 
measures of compromise were to be worked out. 

Clay, who had returned to the Senate, after nearly eight years of 
absence, to resume his part in national affairs, being convinced that 
the Union was in danger, set himself to construct a plan of compro- 
mise, which he hoped would give peace to the country for thirty years, 
as the Missouri compromise had done. On January 29, 1850, he pre- 
sented this plan to the Senate in a series of eight resolutions. These 
recommended that California, with suitable boimdaries, should be 
admitted to the Union without the imposition of any restrictions 
in regard to slavery; that, as slavery did not exist by law m any of 
the territory acquired from Mexico and was not likely to be intro- 
duced, territorial governments should be established by Congress in 
that territory without any restrictions in regard to slavery; and that 
the boundary between Texas and New Mexico should be settled by 
the giving up by Texas of her claims on the territory in dispute in 
return for the payment of her pubhc debt contracted prior to annex- 
ation and not exceeding a certain sum to be agreed upon later. The 
resolutions further declared that it was inexpedient for Congress to 
abolish slavery in the District of Columbia and that it had no power 

91 



92 Mississippi Historical Society. 

to interfere with the slave trade between the states; but that it was 
expedient to prohibit the slave trade within the District of Columbia 
and that a more effectual provision should be made for the restitu- 
tion of persons bound to service or labor.^ 

In spite of Clay's request that the members of the Senate should 
deliberate well and dispassionately on his resolutions before they 
took ground against them, Ruske, Foote, Mason, Davis, King, Downs, 
Berrien, and Butler hastened to object to them; and all together made 
it evident that the measures proposed by the senator from Kentucky 
did not form a compromise acceptable to the South. 

Foote found a number of points in which the resolutions seemed 
objectionable to him. They asserted only that it was not expedient 
that Congress should abolish slavery in the District of Columbia; 
whereas, he held that Congress had no such power of legislation. 
The resolutions, also, asserted that slavery did not exist by law in 
the territories acquired from Mexico; and he was of the opinion that 
the treaty with Mexico carried the constitution, with all its guarantees, 
to all the territory obtained by that treaty and secured the privilege 
to every Southern slaveholder to enter any part of it, attended by 
his slave property, and to enjoy the same therein free from all moles- 
tation or hindrance whatever. He also thought that whether sla- 
very was or was not likely to be introduced into any part of that 
territory was a proposition too uncertain to be positively affirmed 
and was imwilling to make a solemn legislative declaration on that 
point. In addition, he objected to the resolutions adjusting the 
boundary of Texas, because he thought that the title of Texas to all 
the territory embraced in the boundaries as laid down in her law of 1836 
was undeniable and that one of the resolutions called that title into 
question; and, also, because he was opposed to the principle of assum- 
ing state debts and preferred that Texas should be paid money for the 
soil that he favored, under certain appropriate safeguards, buying 
from her. 

However, he saw no objection to the abolition of the slave trade in 
the District of Columbia and approved the resolutions providing for 
the restoration of fugitives from service and labor, and for the estab- 
lishment of territorial governments free from all restriction, on the 

^ Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., i Sess., 246. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hear on. 93 

subject of slavery; also, the resolution asserting that Congress had no 
power to prohibit the trade in slaves from state to state. Finally, 
he declared that if all other questions connected with the subject of 
slavery could be satisfactorily adjusted, he saw no objection to ad- 
mitting into the Union all California above the line 36° 30'; provided 
another new slave state could be laid off within the limits of Texas, 
so as to keep up the " equiponderance" between the slave and the 
free states of the Union; and provided, further, that all this was done 
by way of compromise and in order to save the Union .^ 

Jefferson Davis followed Foote in a protest in which he took the 
same position that Foote had taken in his contentions that Congress 
could not prohibit slavery in the District of Columbia and had no 
power to deprive Texas of its rightful boimdary of the Rio Bravo del 
Norte from its mouth to its source; and, also, in his objections to the 
assertion in Clay's resolutions that slavery was excluded from Cali- 
fornia by Mexican laws and would never, under any circumstances 
be established there. Davis declined to receive the measure pro- 
posed by Clay as a compromise; for he declared that he did not con- 
sider a measure in which the minority received nothing a compromise, 
and that he looked upon Clay's proposal but as a modest mode of 
taking that, the claim to which had been more boldly asserted by 
others. 

That his position might be understood and that it might go forth 
to the country with the sentiments of the senator from Kentucky, 
Davis definitely stated his demands in regard to the extension of 
slavery in the territories. He declared: 

I here assert that never will I take less than the Missouri compromise line ex- 
tended to the Pacific ocean, with the specific recognition of the right to hold slaves 
in the territory below that line; and that, before such territories are admitted into 
the Union as States, slaves may be taken there from any of the United States at 
the option of their owners.^ 

This declaration of Davis brought out an essential point of dif- 
ference between him and Foote in regard to slavery in the territories. 
Although both demanded that the southern boundary of California 
should be fixed on the line of 36° 30' north latitude, Foote gave his 
hearty approval to that portion of Clay's resolutions that declared in 

' Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., i Sess., 247. 
^ Ihid., 249. 



Q4 Mississippi Historical Society. 

favor of the establishment of territorial governments free from all 
restriction on the subject of slavery; whereas Davis demanded that 
the Missouri compromise line should be extended to the Pacific, with 
the specific recognition of the right of slaveholders to carry their 
slaves into the territories below that line and hold them there until 
those territories were admitted into the Union as states. 

Both of the senators from Mississippi did not long delay in express- 
ing at greater length and in a more formal manner their views in 
regard to the questions embodied in Clay's resolutions. Foote for- 
mulated a series of resolutions and submitted them to the Senate as 
an amendment he proposed to offer to Clay's compromise measure. 
The first resolution of the series is significant because it shows Foote 
at variance with the doctrine concerning the power of Congress in 
the admission of new states enunciated by Calhoun and generally 
accepted in the South. Foote declared: 

Congress posesses under the Constitution full and exclusive power to admit or 
refuse to admit new States into the Union, of its own discretion, which discretion, 
though ought in no case to be exercised arbitrarily, unjustly, or to the injury of any 
of the sovereign members of the Confederacy, or to the injury or disparagement of 
any of their reserved rights. 

Having stated the basis of his views in regard to the admission of 

California, Foote offered the following resolution in regard to that 

question : 

That in the judgment of the Senate, California is not, at the present time, ab- 
solutely entitled to admission into the Union as a State; that whether she should 
be admitted or not is a simple question of expediency; that it would be altogether 
impolitic to admit her with the boundaries specified in the constitution recently 
adopted by her Convention, or with a territorial surface extending south of the 
compromise line of 36° 30'; that it would be unwise to grant such admission, if it 
should be hereafter made to appear that her present civil organization has been 
brought about by unfair, unconstitutional, or coercive action on the part of the Fed- 
eral Government, or any of its functionaries; and that, all other impediments being 
removed, such admission should, under existing circumstances, only be allowed 
to take place under a clear and distinct understanding and agreement that a new 
State may be hereafter formed within the present territorial limits of the State of 
Texas, in accordance with the articles of Texan annexation, and be admitted into 
the Union at as early a period as practicable. 

The solution that Foote suggested in regard to the organization 
of the territories was that, without attempting to provide by law 
either for the admission of slavery into the territories or its exclusion, 
Congress should establish, with as little delay as practicable, terri- 
torial governments so framed as to be exempt from all restriction, 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 95 

limitation, or condition in reference to slavery and to afford full pro- 
tection and security to life, liberty, and property, in conformity with 
the provisions of the constitution of the United States. 

In regard to the boundary of Texas, Foote again asserted that the 
title of Texas to all the territory within her boundaries as specified 
in the act of the Congress of the Repubhc of Texas in 1836 was clear 
and unquestionable; but he expressed a willingness to propose to 
Texas that, in consideration of a sum of money to be agreed upon, 
she should cede to the United States all that portion of her territory 
north of the line of 34 degrees, north latitude. He specified, however, 
that the principle of the compromise embodied in the Texas annexa- 
tion resolutions should be reserved permanently within the limits 
of the territory to be ceded and that the money paid to Texas should 
be disposed of by her at her own discretion. 

In the other resolutions, Foote declared that Congress could not 
properly or justly legislate for the abolition of slavery in the District 
of Columbia, except with the unanimous consent of all the slaveholding 
states of the confederacy; that it was inexpedient to legislate at that 
time in regard to the prohibition of the trade in slaves in the District 
of Columbia and that such legislation might well be left to the munici- 
pal authorities of the district; that more effectual provisions ought 
to be made for the restitution of fugitive slaves; and that Congress 
had no power to prohibit or obstruct the trade in slaves between the 
slaveholding states.* 

During his remarks on Clay's resolutions at the time of their intro- 
duction, Davis was challenged by Clay to a discussion; and so, on the 
thirteenth and fourteenth of February, in a long speech, carefully 
prepared to refute the arguments made by Clay in his speech of Feb- 



* Resolutions submitted by Foote to the Senate, February 8, 1850, Cong. Globe, 
31 Cong., I Sess., 323. 

On January 16, 1850, Foote had introduced a bill in the Senate for the settle- 
ment of the question of the extension of slavery into the territories that it is 
interesting to compare with this. That bill provided for the organization of terri- 
torial governments in California, Deseret, and New Mexico without reference to 
slavery, and the formation of the state of Jacinto within the boundaries of Texas 
and its admission into the Union upon an equal footing with all the other states, 
provided its constitution were republican in character and not repugnant to the 
constitution of the United States. This bill is important only as a statement of 
the settlement that Foote and the other Southerners would have liked, for it was 
referred to the committee on territories and nothing came of it. IbiJ., 170- 



96 Mississippi Historical Society. 

ruary fifth and sixth, Davis explained his position on the questions 
at issue in this crisis and sought to bring the Senate to a realization 
of the danger threatening the Union. 

The movement against the interests of the South, he declared, was 
the result of the cold calculating purpose of those who sought sec- 
tional dominion; for the spirit upon which the abolition movement 
originally rested had long since passed away and that movement was 
no longer the clamor of a noisy fanaticism, but the steady advance 
of a self-sustaining power to the goal of unlimited supremacy. Al- 
ready, a large part of the non-slaveholding states had declared war 
against the institution of slavery and announced that it should not 
be extended. Moreover they had coupled with their annunciation 
the declaration that slavery was a stain upon the Republic, a moral 
blot which should be obliterated. Davis asked: 

Now, sir, can any one believe, does any one hope that the Southern States of 
this Confederacy wUl continue, as in time gone by, to support the Union, to bear 
its burdens, in peace and in war, in a degree disproportioned to their number, if 
that very government is to be arrayed in hostility against an institution so inter- 
woven with its interests, its domestic peace, and all its social relations, that it can- 
not be disturbed without causing their overthrow? This Government is the agent 
of all the States; can it be expected of any of them that they will consent to be 
bound by its acts, when the agent announces the settled purpose in the exercise 
of its power to overthrow that which it was its duty to uphold? That obligation 
ceases whenever such a construction shall be placed upon its power by the Fed- 
eral Government. The essential purpose for which the grant was made being 
disregarded, the means given for defence being perverted to assault, State alle- 
giance thenceforward resumes its right to demand the service of all its citizens. 

To guard against this state of affairs, Davis believed that it was 
essential that neither section of the Union should have such power in 
Congress as would render it able to trample upon the rights of the 
other and asserted that it would be a blessing and an essential means 
of preserving the Confederacy for the North to have a majority in 
one branch of Congress and the South in the other. 

With reference to the question of slavery in the territories, Davis 
supported the right of a slaveholder to go with his slave into any 
portion of the United States, except into a state where the funda- 
mental law had forbidden slavery, and denied that the government 
of the United States had the sovereign power to prohibit slavery in 
the territories or that a territorial community, "a dependence of the 
United States," had any such power. For, according to Davis, the 
sovereignty over the territories "rests in the States." He added: 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 97 

There is no power, save that of the States, which can exclude any property, or 
can determine what is property, in the territories so held by the States in common. 
That power the States have not delegated; it can be exercised rightfully only by 
compact or agreement of the States. It is, therefore, that I have held and hold 
that the Missouri compromise derived its validity from the acquiescence of the 
States, and not from the act of Congress. 

The argument of Clay that slavery was prohibited by law in Mexico 
and that this prohibition imder Mexican law continued in the terri- 
tory acquired by the United States from Mexico, Davis utterly re- 
jected. He pointed out that, if the argmnent were good with refer- 
ence to slavery, it must be equally good with reference to some sixty 
articles of ordinary commerce and the Protestant religion, which were 
also prohibited by Mexican law in the territories in question. But 
he declared that free trade with the United States and freedom of 
worship extended to the territories because the constitution overrode 
the laws of Mexico; and that, since the constitution recognized prop- 
erty in slaves and secured equal privileges and immimities to all citi- 
zens of the United States, the South claimed the abolition of slavery 
by Mexico to have died with the transfer of the territories to the United 
States. 

Davis then proceeded to inquire into the character of property in 
slaves to determine what it was that excluded it from the general 
benefit of the principle appUed to all other property. He denied that 
property in slaves was local in its nature and derived its existence 
from municipal law. This property like all other, he asserted, was 
not the creation of statutes; it was regulated by law like other tenure 
and relations of society, but like other property must have existed 
before laws were passed concerning it; like other property, it resulted 
from the dominion of mind over matter, and more distinctly than 
most other species of property is traced back to the remotest period 
of antiquity. It was not established in America by law, nor did it 
originate here. It came into the colonies, as all other property did, 
subject to the common law which governed them; and, from time to 
time, laws were passed to regulate it, but never to establish it. 

Davis declined to discuss property in slaves as an abstract question 
of justice or injustice. It was enough for him, in Congress, he asserted, 
to know that Congress was not called upon to legislate either for its 
amelioration or to fix the places in which it should be held, and cer- 
tainly had no pov/er to abolish it. It was enough for him, elsewhere. 



qS Mississippi Historical Society. 

''to know, that it was established by decree of Almighty God, that it 
is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Reve- 
lations; that it has existed in all ages; has been found among the 
people of the highest civihzation, and in nations of the highest profi- 
ciency in the arts." He added: 

Testimony might be produced to show that many blessings spring from it in 
proportion to the evils that are so loudly denounced as an inherent part of it. But 
I ask of those who entertain opinions opposite to mine, is it well to denounce an 
evil for which there is no cure. Why not denoimce criminal laws, declaim against 
disease, pain, or poverty, as wrong? There are many evils in the condition of man 
which we would be glad to remedy; but, not being able, we permit them to exist 
as less than those which would follow an interference with them. 

From the other argument of Clay that slavery was excluded from 
the territory acquired from Mexico by a decree of nature, Davis also 
dissented. He held that gold washing and mining and a system of agri- 
culture which demanded irrigation were pecuHarly adapted to slave 
labor and believed that slavery would be very essential to the develop- 
ment of, at least, a portion of CaUfornia and New Mexico. He con- 
cluded the discussion of Clay's resolutions on the territories by a 
statement of the demands of the South, as he understood them, in 
regard to the territories. He declared: 

We do not ask Congress to express an opinion in relation to the decrees of nature, 
or say that slavery shall be planted in any of the Territories of the United States. 
We only claim that we shall be permitted to have the benefit of an experiment, 
that we may have that equal participation in the enjoyment of the Territories 
which would secure to us an opportunity to be heard in the determination of their 
permanent institutions. We have only said that we are entitled to a decision of the 
Supreme Court of the United States, and that we should be allowed to try the insti- 
tution of slavery, that thus it might be ascertained what the decree of nature is. 
Both these have been denied to us. We have been denied by Congress an appeal 
to the Supreme Court; we have been debarred by congressional agitation from 
obtaining the decree of nature. 

As to the more effective fugitive slave law recommended in Clay's 
resolutions, Davis declared that, if such a law were passed at that 
session of Congress, it would be a dead letter in any state where the 
popular opinion was opposed to the rendition of fugitive slaves, be- 
cause the government of the United States, more than any other, 
depended on the consent of the people and so emphatically was this 
true that the laws of Congress could not be executed in any state of 
the Union if that state were resolved to resist them. He had never 
expected any benefit to result to the South from the legislation by Con- 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hear on. 99 

gress, in regard to fugitive slaves and he believed that upon this, as 
upon every other subject, Southerners must rely more on the patri- 
otism, the good sense, and the morality of the people of the North 
than upon any tribunal to preserve their rights. For he beUeved 
that if the wrongs and the injuries heaped upon the South were vmder- 
stood by the great body of the people at the North, the whole conduct 
of their politicians would be rebuked and peace and harmony would 
be restored. 

In regard to the other points in Clay's resolutions, Davis denied 
that the boimdary of Texas was an open question, that Congress had 
a right to prohibit slavery in the District of Columbia or to appropri- 
ate money for the purpose of emancipation, declared that he preferred 
the Wilmot proviso to the admission of California under the consti- 
tution it had drawn up, and denied that the resolutions contained 
any concessions to the South. 

Davis closed his long speech with a statement of the grounds of 
complaint of the South against the North and a warning of the danger 
facing the country. As the grounds of complaint of the South, he 
pointed to the agitation in the two halls of Congress m relation to the 
domestic institutions of the South; the action of the legislatures of 
the Northern states defeating the provisions of the constitution that 
were among its compromises for the benefit of the South; the denun- 
ciation heaped upon the slaveholders by the press of the North and 
the attempts to degrade them in the eyes of Christendom; and the 
sectional organization for the purpose of hostility to the southern 
portion of the Union. These, Davis declared, were weakening the 
bonds of union and threatening their final rupture. 

He denied the responsibility of the South for the sowing of seeds of 
disunion. Every charge of disunion that was made against the part 
of the South that he, in part, represented, he pronounced grossly 
calumnious and defended the conduct of Mississippi in calling a 
convention as the result of patriotism and a high resolve to preserve, 
if possible, the constitutional Union. Every movement taken there- 
in, Davis asserted, was independent of the action of anybody else, 
unless the principles of those who had gone before, leaving the rich 
legacy of their free institutions, were referred to. In that case, 
Davis significantly declared, they must go back to the bold spirit 
of the barons of England. That spirit, he asserted, had come down 



loo Mississippi Historical Society. 

to Southerners and they would defend their rights, and, if it were 
necessary, claim from the government of the United States, as the 
barons claimed from John, the grant of another Magna Charta for their 
protection. 

He solemnly warned the North that if Southerners were denied 
the benefits guaranteed by the constitution their self-respect would 
require them to maintain them. It was not interest or fear, he assert- 
ed, that bound the South to the Union, but mainly a feeUng of attach- 
ment; and he asked the members of the Senate to consider how long 
aflFection could be proof against such trials and injuries and provo- 
cations as the South was continually receiving. 

It depended on the majority, Davis stated, to say whether this 
strife between the sections should be arrested or whether it should 
proceed to a final catastrophe. It was for those who had the power 
to pass a measure of compromise, to propose one. Since his section 
had no such power, he had no measure to suggest; but he was willing 
to meet any fair proposition which promised security for the future 
and gave assurance of permanent peace. If he strictly measured 
his conduct by the recent expressions of opinion in his state, he would 
have no power to accept any terms save the unqualified admission 
of the equal rights of the citizens of the South to go into any of the 
territories of the United States with any and every species of their 
property; but he was willing to take his share of the responsibility that 
the crisis demanded and to rely on the known love for the whole 
country of the people whom he represented and their abiding respect 
for the Union of the states.^ 

Foote, with other Southerners, was convinced that the only hope 
of imposing conditions on California and securing proper compensa- 
tion for the South for her admission lay in combining California with 
the other questions at issue. Therefore he took advantage of the 
additional tension caused by the message of the president, on Feb- 
ruary 13, transmitting to Congress the "Constitution of the State of 
California,"^ to propose the selection of a special committee of fifteen 
to which should be referred the president's message, with the accom- 
panying documents, and the various propositions before the Senate 

^Speech of Jefferson Davis, Februaty 13 and 14, 1850, Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., 
I Sess., appx., 149-157. 

^Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., i Sess., 355. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. loi 

relating to the question of slavery in all its bearings; and the duty 
of which should be to report, if it found it practicable to do so, a plan 
for the definite settlement of the unhappy controversy.^ 

Since this measure was opposed by Clay on the ground that the ques- 
tion of California should be kept separate and settled as expeditiously 
as possible, Foote proceeded to urge the necessity of embracing all the 
questions at issue in one compromise bill. He declared it to be his 
solemn dispassionate conviction that, it California were dragged into 
the Union in the mode proposed, the Southern states would feel that 
all hope of fraternal compromise had become extinct, and that 
such intolerable oppression had been imposed upon them " as to justify, 
nay, to demand secession from the Union, in order to save themselves 
from evils worse than disunion itself." He was not urging disunion 
as a remedy for the existing grievances, he explained; he was not 
authorized in his official capacity to so so; and he could honestly de- 
clare that nothing but dire necessity could, in his judgment, justify 
a resort to measures so extreme. He added: 

And yet I do believe that the Congressional legislation so long threatened, and 
at this time as fiercely threatened as ever on the subject of slavery, will, when 
it shall occur, be productive of that very state of things; a state of intolerable 
oppression, which, according to Andrew Jackson himself, whose love for the Union 
no one can question, would justify secession, not as a constitiUional, but as a revo- 
lutionary remedy^ 

Although Foote thus warned the North that the South might be 
driven to seek safety out of the Union, he defended his section from 
the charge of desiring a dissolution of the Union. He asserted that 
disunion meetings had been held in Massachusetts, New York, and 
other states north of Mason and Dixon's line, but that south of that 
line no such meeting or convention had ever been held, nor any dis- 
union sentiment avowed to his knowledge; but that only God knew 
what results might be brought about by continued oppression and 
insult. He cordially reiterated the views of his colleague, Senator 
Da\ds, on that subject, especially that portion of his remarks that 
referred to the proceedings of the Mississippi convention. He de- 
clared: 



Ubid.,356. . ^. J. 

Foote gives the credit of suggesting this measure to Thomas Ritchie, editor of 
the Washingtom Union. Foote, Casket of Reminiscences, 25. 

« Speech of Foote, February 14, 1850, Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., i Sess., 366. 



I02 Mississippi Historical Society. 

Our object in proposing the convention at Nashville so much misunderstood, 
and oftimes, as I think, so wilfully misrepresented, was not to subvert the Union, 
but to save it from destruction; not to overturn the constitution, to which the 
Union itself owes its existence, but to preserve it in all of its purity and vigor, and, 
by preserving it, to preserve and perpetuate the Union also. . . . . I do 
not doubt, though, that such a convention might serve as a convenient rallying 
point, in the event of our being driven out of the Union by intolerable oppression, 
and enable us to save ourselves from utter degration and ruin. 

He hoped, however, that the occasion for using the convention for 
such a purpose might not arise.^ 

Although it was generally recognized that the real settlement of 
the sectional contest would be devised in the Senate, the members of 
the House from Mississippi, together with those from the other 
Southern states, rallied to the support of the demands of their section 
and made it quite evident that they would not allow a bill for the 
admission of California to pass the House unless the other questions 
at issue were satisfactorily adjusted. 

A. G. Brown, more tmrestrained in speech than Davis or Foote, 
warned the North that the South would submit to injustice no longer; 
that the issue was made up and that the North must choose between 
non-interference with Southern rights, on the one side, and a disso- 
lution of the Union, on the other. The people of the South, he assert- 
ed, had the same right to go into the territories with their slave prop- 
erty as those of the North had to go with their personal estate^" and 
they would resist the denials of that right to the last extremity. In 
substantiation of this, he pointed to the position of Virginia, Georgia, 
Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina and the warnings that were 
coming up from those and the other Southern states. 

Brown proclaimed that it was useless to deny that the Union v/as 

' Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., i Sess., 368-369. 

1° This assertion Brown based on his theory of the sovereignty of the states and 
the character of the United States government. According to Brown, the states 
were co-equal sovereigns and the United States a mere agent for them, holding 
certain political powers in trust to be exercised for their common benefit. The 
common agent acted for the sovereignties in carrying on the war with Mexico; but 
the people that the agent called upon to fight the battles of the war was not the 
people of the United States — for there was no such political body — but the people 
of the states, respectively. The territory acquired as a result of the war belonged 
to the people of the respective states in common; and the states being co-equal 
sovereigns — for there is no such thing as sovereigns of great and of small degree — 
it followed that one half of the sovereignties could not exclude the other half from 
equal participation in the joint property acquired by all. In fact, so long as one of 
the sovereignties protested against a disposition of what belonged to all such a 
disposition could not be rightfully made. Ibid., 257. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of iSso^Hearon. 103 

in danger. While the other sections had been heaping outrage upon 
outrage, adding insult to insult, the people of the South had been 
calmly calculating the value of the Union. They had considered the 
question in all its bearings and their minds were made up. They 
had designated a point beyond which they would not submit because 
submission beyond that point would mvolve consequences more terri- 
ble than disunion, the fearful consequences of sectional degradation. 
He warned the men of the North that, if they attempted to force 
sectional degradation on the South, the men of the South would re- 
sist, and that, if in the conflict, the Union should be dissolved, Southern- 
ers would not be responsible. 

Brown denied that he harbored disunion sentiments, but boldly 
proclaimed that he preferred a dissolution of the Union to sectional 
and social degradation. He exclaimed: 

Does any man desire to know at what time and for what cause I would dissolve 
the Union I will tell him. At the first moment after you consummate your first 
act of^sression upon slave property, I would declare the Union dissolved; and for 
fh s reaSn such an act, perpetuated after the warning we have given you, would 
evLeTsettled purpose to interpose your authority in the management of our 
domestic affa!?s, thuTdegradmg u^, from our rightful position as equals to a s^ate 
of dependence and subordination. Do not mistake me; I do not say that such an 
act S per se, justify dismiion; I do not say that our exclusion from the Ter- 
ritories woiJd aline justify it; I do not say that the destruction of the slave trade 
Tn the District of CoEmbia, nor even its abolition here, nor yet the prohibition o 
the slave trade among the States, would justify it. It may be, that not one, nor 
wo, or :U of the'sTco^bmed would justify disunion. J^-e -e J.-^^^^^^^^^ 
steps— they lead you on to the mastery over us, and you shaU not take those steps. 

He begged the North to remember, before the first fatal step was 
taken that Southerners had mterests mvolved that they could not 
relinqiiish. The direct pecuniary interest bound up mth the issue 
was not less than twenty hundred miUions of dollars, and yet the loss 
of that would be the least of the calamities that would be entailed on 
the Southerners. For their country would be made desolate and they 
would become landless and homeless exiles; or, ten thousand times 
worse, they would remam in the country and see themselves degraded 
to a social position with the black race. Sooner than submit to this, 
Brown declared, the South would dissolve a thousand unions. 

Turning his attention to the admission of CaUfomia, Brovvn urged, 
in addition to the objections based on the course of the admmistra- 
tion, the more serious one that the admission of Cahforma as a state 
would unhinge the balance between the two sections of the Union, 



I04 Mississippi Historical Society. 

give the North the dangerous preponderance in the Senate so long 
desired by ambitious politicians, and open the way for the admission 
of other free states until the North would have the majority of states 
required to amend the constitution. When this was done, Brown 
asserted, that pubic opinion to which Senator Seward so significantly 
alluded would make its power felt, universal emancipation would 
become the rallying cry, and the constitution would be changed. 
To prevent this. Southerners should resist the introduction of Cali- 
fornia as a state by their votes first and then by other means. The 
Southern members of Congress could, at least, force an adjournment 
without the admission of California; and, this being done, the South 
was safe, for the Southern states, in convention at Nashville, would 
devise means for vindicating their rights. What those means would 
be, Brown did not know; but he did know that they might with pro- 
priety and safety be the carrying of slaves into southern California, 
as the property of sovereign states, and the holding of them there, 
and the defending of them if they were molested. 

Brown concluded his speech by summing up in one sentence his 
position in regard to the course the South should take concerning the 
extension of slavery in the territories: 

We ask you to give us our rights by non-intervention; if you refuse, I am for 
taking them by armed occupation}^ 

Clingman, of North Carolina, had, already, in a speech as extreme 
as Brown's, proclaimed to the country that Southern Whigs, as well 
as Southern Democrats were ready to dissolve the Union if justice 
were not done their section.^^ Finally, the Whigs and the Democrats 
in the House from the South proved their determination to force 
Congress to offer a measure of compromise acceptable to the slave- 
holding states by uniting in a successful filibuster to prevent the 
passage of a resolution instructing the committee on territories to 
prepare and report a bill providing for the admission of California 
into the Union on an equal footing with the original states, with the 
boundaries defined in her constitution, and forbidding the committee 
to embrace in the bill any matter relating to territory without the 
limits of the proposed state of California." 

" Speech of A. G. Brown, January 30, 1850, Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., i Sess., 261. 
^ Speech of Clingman in the House, January 22, 1850, Ibid., 200. 
"/6jrf., 375-385. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 105 

It is evident, from what has been said, that the senators and repre- 
sentatives from Mississippi and other members of Congress from the 
South were seriously alarmed in the early months of 1850, both for 
the preservation of the rights of the South and for the safety of the 
Union. As the strength of the opposition in Congress developed, 
they became less hopeful of an adjustment of the questions in dispute 
by peaceable or constitutional means and of the preservation of 
Southern rights within the Union.^* But believing that the only 
hope of preserving the Union lay in securing a measure of compromise 
that would protect the rights of their section, they threw themselves 
wholeheartedly into the task of convincing the North that a dissolu- 
tion of the Union would follow a denial of the demands of the South. 

They had speedy evidence of their success. Before the end of 
January the National Era declared that Meade, Toombs, Stephens, 
Colcock, Hilliard, and Johnson in the House and Foote, Borland, 
Clemens, Mason, Butler, and Davis in the Senate were disunionists 
and, if they fairly represented the South, it could not see how the 
Union could continue much longer.^^ But, most significant of all, 
the National Intelligencer was at last convinced that the Union was 
in danger. On February 2, that important Whig journal broke its 
silence on the questions that were threatening to convulse the country. 
It declared that there was a deep and settled determination in the 
Southern states, accompanied by a highly excited state of feeling, 
to try the strength of the South against Northern friends as well as 
fanatics. The revelation of the actual state of things, the Intelli- 
gencer asserted, was so recent that it was still stupned. There had 
been no signs of the storm in the presidential contest of 1848 and 
there were no new grounds for alarm. It could not understand what 
could have come over the South, especially Georgia, North Carolina, 
Virginia and Maryland, and what was the secret of all its preparation, 
solemnity, and mystery.'^ 

The New York Tribune also lent its aid to convincing the North 
that the South was preparing to dissolve the Union if its demands 

"Letter of Alexander H. Stephens to his brother, January 21, 1850, Johnston 
and Browne, Life of A. H. Stephens, 244; Letter of Colonel McWillie to Governor 
Quitman, Columbus Democrat, February 23, 1850; Letter of Calhoun to Hammond, 
February 16, 1850, Calhoun Corresp., 781. 

i* National Era, January 24, 1850. 

" National Intelligencer, February 2, 1850. 



io6 Mississippi Historical Society. 

were not granted. It published a communication from a Washington 
correspondent concerning a disunion organization in Washington 
composed of Southern senators and representatives. The members 
of the organization, according to the communication, were opposed 
to any compromise and would consider only the one proposed by 
Jefferson Davis in his objections to Clay's resolutions, i.e., the exten- 
sion of the Missouri compromise line to the Pacific.^^ The editor of 
the Tribune declared: 

Instead of scouting or ridicviling as chimerical the idea of a dissolution of the 
Union, we firmly believe that there are sixty members of Congress who this day 
desire it and are plotting to effect it. We have no doubt that the Nashville Conven- 
tion will be held, and that the leading purpose of its authors is the separation of 
the slave states from the free, with the formation of an independent Southern 
Confederacy."^^ 

But the crisis had passed. Even in the early days of February 
indications began to appear that the conservative element was in the 
majority in both sections and would be willing to make concessions 
that would effect a compromise, which would not satisfy the demands 
of the extremists of either side. The vote in the House, on February 
4, to table Root's resolution, showed that that body was willing, at 
last, to give up the Wilmot proviso.^^ Clay's resolutions and his 
speech in support of them had great effect on Southern WTiigs in 
quieting their alarm and making it appear possible to them to effect 
an adjustment that would protect the rights of the South within the 
Union. Moreover, as public sentiment in the slaveholding states 
became more definitely formulated and authoritatively expressed, 
it became evident that, although the majority in the South were op- 
posed to the admission of California with its extended boundaries and 
under the constitution it had adopted, they were unwilling to declare 

^^ New York Semi-weekly Tribune, February 6, 1850. The correspondent stated 
that the members of the organization had intimidated several Southern senators 
who were advocates of the Union and had made others from the North believe that 
the organization had gone so far so as to make separation inevitable if their demands 
were not granted, by disclosing to them that through committees of correspond- 
ence and vigilance their organization was in daily commimication with every slave 
state, exhibiting the program of the constitution for a new republic to be sub- 
mitted to the Nashville convention, and pretending that a course of action was 
agreed upon that would render a collision between the United States forces and 
theirs inevitable and thus unite with them every slave state. 

^^ Ibid., February 27, 1850. 

^' Root's resolution instructed the committee on territories to report to the 
House a bill or bills providing for a territorial government or govenmients for all 
that part of the territory ceded to the United States by Mexico lying eastward of 
California, and prohibiting slavery therein. Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., i Sess., 276. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 107 

that such a measure should be resisted. The Southern Whigs were 
especially opposed to committing the South to such a policy and the 
extreme pro-slavery Whigs in Congress took the position that they 
were willing to acquiesce in the admission of California as a free state 
provided the right of the citizens of the slaveholding states to carry 
their property in slaves into the remainder of the territory acquired 
from Mexico and to have it protected there was recognized .2" 

Thus even before Calhoun, the dominant factor in the Southern 
movement and the great exponent of Southern rights, set forth his posi- 
tion, it was e\ddent that he could not carry his section with him in an 
extreme policy. During the first three months of this Congress Cal- 
houn was convinced that he had at length succeeded in his great task 
of uniting the South in defense of its rights, and that it was agreed on 
terms of settlement and would consent to no diminution of them by 
way of compromised^ 

But, although he saw no prospect for an adjustment satisfactory 
to his section within the Union, since he beheved the North was as 
determined as the South to grant no concessions,^ before he said the 
final word in favor of dissolution, Calhoun made one last effort to 
secure the protection of Southern rights within the Union. • 

Too ill to speak, he carefully prepared a speech and, with the 
shadow of death upon him, lent the influence of his sombre presence 
to the reading of it in the Senate by his friend and follower. Mason, of 
Virginia. After warning the country that the agitation of the slavery 
question had endangered the Union, Calhoun declared that there was 
but one way by which it could with any certamty be saved and that 
was by a full and final settlement, on principles of justice, of all the 
questions at issue between the sections. 

The North, as the stronger section, could easily effect such a settle- 
ment, he asserted. She had only "to do justice by conceding to the 
South an equal right in the acquired territory, and to do her duty 
by causing the stipulations relative to fugitive slaves to be faithfully 



20 Letter of Alexander H. Stephens to his brother, February 24, 1850, Johnston 
and Browne, Life of A. H. Stephens, 249; Speech of Toombs, February 27, 1850, 
Cong. G/o6e, 31 Cong., I Sess., appx., 198-201. 

21 Letters of Calhoun, December 1849, and January and February, 1850, Calhoun 
Corresp., 776—783. _ 

22 Letters of Calhoun December, 1849, and January and February, 1850, Cal- 
houn Corresp., 776-783. 



io8 Mississippi Historical Society. 

fulfilled — to cease the agitation of the slave question, and to provide 
for the insertion of a provision in the constitution, by an amendment, 
which will restore to the South in substance the power she possessed 
of protecting herself, before the equilibrium between the sections was 
destroyed by the action of this government." 

Whether the North would agree to this, was for its representatives 
in Congress to answer. The time had come for an open avowal on 
all sides as to what was intended to be done. If the senators who 
represented the stronger portion of the Union could not agree to 
settle the questions at issue on the broad principles of justice and 
duty, they should say so and let the states agree to separate and part 
in peace. But, if they were unwilling that the South should depart in 
peace, they should so declare and the South would know what to do 
when the question was reduced to submission or resistance. If the 
Northern senators remained silent, the South would be compelled to 
infer by their acts what they intended and, in that case, California 
would become the test question. If they admitted her, under all 
the difficulties that opposed her admission, they would compel the 
South to infer that they intended to exclude it from the whole of 
the acquired territories, with the intention of destroying irretrievably 
the equilibrium between the two sections. Southerners would be 
blind not to perceive, in that case, that the real object of their oppo- 
nents was power and aggrandizement, and infatuated not to act 
accordingly.^' 

But Calhoim, in the terms of settlement he prescribed, had not 
simply overshot the demands of Southern Whigs, but had also exceed- 
ed those of the more radical Southern Democrats. Even the Missis- 
sippi senators decUned to support his demand for an amendment to 
the constitution to restore to the South the power of protecting her- 
self. Foote, who had been active in the Southern movement since 
its inception and in close touch with Calhoun, broke with the South 
Carolinian on this question; and, from this time, there is evidence 
of the growing cleavage between him and the Southern radicals and 
of his approach to the position of Clay and the other Southern Whigs.^' 

*' Speech of Calhoun, March 4, 1850, Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., i Sess., 451-455- 
"^ It is but fair to Foote to call attention to the fact that, though he had helped 
to organize the Southern movement and had worked energetically to arouse and 
unify the South and to alarm the North, he had never completely agreed with Cal- 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 109 

Fearing that Calhoun's speech would be considered in the North 
as voicing the public sentiment of the South, and that its effect would 
be adverse to all efforts at compromise and fearing especially its in- 
fluence on the formation of the compromise committee for which he 
was working,^^ Foote took the first opportunity to seek to reassure 
the growing spirit of compromise so seriously imperilled by the great 
South Carolinian, by disavowing, for himself and his section, the 
extreme demand of Calhoun. He said that Calhoun's speech had, 
in his opinion, been written without consultation with any other 
Southern senator and that no other senator would be willing to be- 
come responsible for portions of it.^^ He protested against the demand 
for an amendment to the constitution to restore to the South the power 
of protecting itself as impossible of performance, or certainly of being 
complied with at that session of Congress; as wholly repugnant to 
the attitude previously assumed by the South and by Southern sena- 
tors and representatives in Congress, who had up to that time con- 

houn in regard to either policy or doctrine. In September, 1849, he had sought 
to get Calhoun to support the policy of admitting California as a state under South- 
em auspices and of making provision for New Mexico by providing for its admis- 
sion when a sufficient number of persons of American birth should become resident 
there and, in the meantime, prohibiting all legislation on the subject of slavery 
either by Congress or by the territorial legislature. It seemed to him that in that 
way the" honor of the South might be saved and the population of both California 
and New Mexico so effectually conciliated as, in time, to lead to most advanta- 
geous results. (Letter of Foote to Calhoun, September 25, 1849, Calhoun Corresp., 
1205). From his speeches and resolutions in Congress, it has been seen that he 
differed from Calhoun on the essential points of the power of Congress in the ad- 
mission of new states and of the constitutional right of secession. Finally, he was, 
from the first, eager to effect a compromise acceptable to the South by combining 
all the questions in dispute in one measure and had introduced in the Senate 
both a bill and resolutions for that purpose and was, at that time, actively engaged 
in advocating the appointment by the Senate of a committee to report such a meas- 
ure. But there was a more fundamental difference between the two men than these 
of doctrine and policy, which made a break between them in a crisis like this mevi- 
table. Foote was an opportunist in character and polidcs; Calhoun was not. 

25 On February 25, Foote made another effort to secure a committee of compro- 
mise by making a motion for the appointment of a committee of thirteen with 
instructions for the purpose of maturing a scheme of compromise for the adjust- 
ment of all pending quesdons growing out of the subject of slavery. Cong. 
Globe, 31 Cong., i Sess., 416, 418. Davis supported Foote's motion for the appoint- 
ment of the committee, but he was careful to state that he would not be bound 
by the decision of the committee. Ibid., 420. ^ ,, , u 

26 Foote afterwards explained that he made his objections to Calhoun s speech 
after a conference with Clemens, Mangum, and Tumey, all of whom were friends 
of Calhoun and agreed with him that one of Calhoun's friends should put in a pro- 
test against Calhoun's demand for a constitutional amendment and thus, by 
anticipating Benton, save themselves and their cause from a highly detrimental 
assault. Cong. Globe, 32 Cong., i Sess., 51. 



no Mississippi Historical Society. 

tented themselves with relying upon the constitution as it was; as 
most inopportunely proposed at a time when the spirit of brotherly 
consideration and compromise was begmning to mark the proceedings 
of Congress and of large public assemblages, and when he, for one, 
confidently hoped that if a special committee of thirteen could be 
raised in the Senate a general scheme of pacification would be speedily 
agreed upon; and, finally, as tending to procrastinate a settlement 
and make disunion inevitable.^' 

Even Davis, who, unlike Foote, was in complete harmony with 
Calhoun in political principles, was not ready to declare that an amend- 
ment to the constitution was necessary to settle the issue between 
the sections. In expressing his agreement with Calhoun as to the 
measures that were necessary to settle the slavery question, he stopped 
when he came to the final one of an amendment to the constitution. 
But out of respect for Calhoun, or because he was not unwilhng to 
hold such a measure in reserve, he added that events had forced upon 
him the conviction that such an additional protection to the South, 
if it were not then necessary, would become so. In fact, the demands 
of Davis had not varied smce the beginning of the session of Congress, 
and in setting them forth again on March 14, he, rather than Cal- 
houn, delivered the ultimatum of the group of Southern Democrats 
to which they belonged. What he preferred above all, he declared, 
was non-intervention, "that is, an equal right to go into all terri- 

" Speech of Foote, March 5, 1850, 31 Cong., i Sess., 461-463. 

Later Foote more than intimated that Calhoun was working to break up the 
Union. He charged Calhoun with obstructing all compromise by denouncing the 
very name of compromise, by actively opposing the raising of the committee of thir- 
teen, and by deliberately undertaking to raise a new issue that he know was cal- 
culated to add to the existing irritation and postpone, if not utterly defeat, all satis- 
factory settlement, when he knew that the meeting of the Nashville convention 
was but little more than two months off, that excitement was every day growing 
more intense, and that a delay in settling the questions at issue would devolve, 
on that body, the most fearful responsibility of a final decision of those questions. 
In furtherance of compromise, Foote was unwilling to admit that, under existing 
circumstances, Calhoun's influence could break up the Union and yet he wished to 
point out the danger to which his course was exposing the country. Therefore, 
he declared that Calhoun must have known that, if the Nashville convention had 
been permitted to assemble without the healing influence of certain speeches in 
Congress and pubhc meetings in Philadelphia and New York, whether it was not 
likely that his influence would have been strong enough to induce the convention 
to demand the change in the constitution that he demanded; and that he also must 
have known that, if such a demand had been made, it would not have been granted 
and that its rejection would have resulted in a dissolution of the Union. Cong. 
Globe, 31 Cong., i Sess., 520. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hear on. 11 1 

tories — all property being alike protected ;"28 but in default of this, 
he added: 

I will agree to the drawing of the line 36° 30' through the territories acquired 
from Mexico, with this condition, that in the same degree as slavery is prohibited 
north of that line, it shall be permitted to enter south of the line; and that States 
which maybe admitted into the Union shall come in under such constitutions as 
they think proper to form.^' 

Foote, however, would not support the ultimatum of Davis; and, 
on this issue, he began his withdrawal from the radical Southern Demo- 
crats, which his break with Calhoun had foreshadowed, and his dis- 
pute with his colleague as to which represented the public sentiment 
of their state. He took his position squarely upon non-intervention, 
or the organization of territorial governments without the Wilmot 
proviso or any other restriction on the subject of slavery; and declared 
that, while he might not be in harmony with the South generally, 
he was certain that he was in unison with his own state. In support 
of this statement, he cited the resolutions of the October convention 
and the speech of Chief Justice Sharkey before that convention as 
proof that the people of Mississippi, occupying strict non-intervention 
ground, demanded only that Congress should refrain from all legisla- 
tion hostile to Southern rights and relied upon the judiciary for the 
decision of all questions which might arise in regard to the legality 
of slavery in the territories. 

But measures of compromise satisfactory to Foote were not sufl5- 
ciently assured for him to be willing to renounce the threat of secession 
or to abandon the plan of the Nashville convention. Therefore he 
added that he understood "every state of the South, including Missis- 
sippi, to declare — that if the course of aggression, heretofore pursued, 
should be obstinately persisted in — if tyranny and injustice should 
be practiced, which might be justly regarded as amounting to intol- 
erable oppression — then would the right of secession arise as an extra- 
constitutional, or, if you please, a revolutionary remedy — authority 
to resort to which, in such a case, no freeman, worthy of the name, 
vnW ever gainsay." Such he understood to be the precise attitude 
of the state of Mississippi, upon the suggestion of which the proposi- 



2* Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., i Sess., 520. 

^' Speech of Jefferson Davis, March 14, 1850, Ibid., 531 



112 Mississippi Historical Society. 

tion to hold a Southern convention in Nashville was first entertained 
by the Southern states. 

But since Foote's object was to promote a more yielding spirit in 
the South, he hastened to add that the Nashville convention had not 
been recommended by Mississippi for disunion purposes and that he 
hoped that the holding of the convention would be rendered unneces- 
sary by the adoption by Congress of certain healing measures that 
were beginning, as he thought, to be generally regarded as more than 
likely to be ultimately matured and carried into effect. He declared 
that he could not concur with his colleague in the rather despondent 
opinion that there was no prospect of passmg a bill through both 
houses of Congress for the estabUshment of territorial governments 
without any restriction in regard to slavery; but that, from informa- 
tion obtained from members of both houses of Congress, he had been 
led to the conclusion that such territorial bills as he had described 
would unquestionably pass both the Senate and the House, if they 
could ever be put fairly in progress; and that he did not doubt but 
that the other questions might be satisfactorily adjusted, whenever 
the Senate should conclude its angry and unprofitable discussions 
and enter, in the proper spirit, upon the pathway of practical duty.'" 

That Foote was right in the opinion that the questions at issue 
between the two sections would be adjusted, even the most radical 
in both sections were coming to believe. After Webster's speech of 
the seventh of March, in which, for the sake of the Union, he supported 
Clay's resolutions of compromise, Calhoun came reluctantly to the 
conclusion that, if Webster were sustamed by New England, it was 
not improbable that the questions at issue between the two sections 
might be patched up for a few years.^^ 

The National Era had already lost faith in Northern congressmen's 
holding out for the extreme demands of their section and prophesied 
the success of the compromise. It asserted that the business interests 
of the North had become alarmed at the threats of disimion spread 
abroad by the Washington correspondents and had decreed that all 
agitation must stop. As evidence of their success, it pointed out that 
Witithrop, who represented the mercantile interests of Boston, had 

^^ Speech of Foote, March 14, 1850, Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., i Sess., 532-533. 
51 Letter of Calhoun to Thomas G. Clemson, March 10, 1850, Calhoun Corresp., 
784. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hear on. 113 

announced his adoption of the policy of the administration; that Web- 
ster, whose business it was to look after the interests of the cotton 
spinners, consulted with Southern men and considered schemes of 
compromise; that the shopkeepers of New York had assembled to 
save the Union and passed resolutions in favor of the resolutions of 
Clay; and that the people of Philadelphia had publicly confessed 
their sins and promised to do all the South required.'^ 

Indeed it was becoming evident to all that the conservative elements 
were in the ascendency in both sections and that they were demanding 
some adjustment of the slavery question that would stop all agitation; 
and it was also beginning to be equally apparent that, in Congress, 
a party in favor of compromise was forming around Clay and that 
Southern Whigs and Northern Democrats would unite to carry 
through the measures proposed in his resolutions.^^ 

But the party of compromise was not yet sufficiently strong to put 
through congress a measure over the opposition of the Southern Demo- 
crats, the Northern Whigs, and the administration, which the influ- 
ence of Seward was holding firm in the policy of admitting California 
as a state and non-action in regard to the other territories. More- 
over the Southern Whigs were determined that a bill for the admis- 
sion of California should not be passed unless combined with it was a 
provision for the organization of the other territories without excluding 
slavery. Therefore, Clay welcomed the overtures of two such im- 
portant Southern Democrats as Foote, of Mississippi, and Ritchie, 
editor of the organ of the Democratic party in Washington, and agreed 
to support the plan, suggested by Ritchie and proposed in the Senate 
by Foote, for the formation of a select committee of thirteen, the 
object of which, according to Foote, was to link the settlement of 
all the questions at issue in one bill, to get for such a settlement the 
support of the united influence of the thirteen senators composmg 
the committee, and finally to carry the measure through by enab- 
ling "Senators and members of the other House to vote more boldly, 
and resolutely, and safely, for measures perhaps somewhat distaste- 

52 National Era, March 7, 1850. 

33 Evidence of this is found in the McClernand biU, Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., i bess 
628; Letter of C. S. Morehead to J. J. Crittenden, March 30, 1850, Coleman Li/e 
of J. J. Crittenden, I, 361; Letter of R. Toombs to J. J Crittenden, Apv.l 25, 
1850, lUd., 364; Letter of Alexander H. Stephens to his brother, May 10, 1850, 
Johnston and Browne, Life of A. H. Stephens, 254. 



114 Mississippi Historical Society. 

ful, as they might have reason to suppose, to their constituents, when 
they are authorized and enabled to declare that they voted as they 
did upon the counsel and example of distinguished gentlemen, whose 
reputation and influence pervade the whole land."^* 

The Southern Democrats had already declared in favor of the ap- 
pointment of the committee and, in spite of the efforts of Benton 
and Northern radicals to block the measure by excluding from the 
consideration of the committee important questions in the contro- 
versy,^* on April i8, a resolution passed the Senate, by a vote of 30 

^ Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., i Sess., 713. 

Foote gives the following account, in his " Casket of Reminiscences' ' of Ritchie's 
overture to Clay in regard to the committee of thirteen: "Mr. Ritchie came to me 
one morning a few weeks after Mr. Clay had reached Washington, in company 
with General Bayley, of Virginia, and urged that we two should call on Mr. Clay 
and ask him to offer a resolution in the Senate for the raising of a committee of 
thirteen, through the instrumentality of which he thought that the great and 
alarming differences then existing might be reconciled and general national brother- 
hood be re-established Mr. Ritchie, in addition, authorized us to 

give in his name to Mr. Clay a most explicit pledge that, should he conclude to 
adopt the course thus indicated, he would support him to the utmost in the widely- 
circulated newspaper he was then editing. General Bayley and myseK called that 
evening upon Mr. Clay in his parlor at the National Hotel. He met us in the most 
gracious and cordial manner, and received with evident pleasure the communica- 
tion with which we had been entrusted by Mr. Ritchie. He declared his warm 
approval of the plan of operation suggested by that gentleman, but stated that, 
for various reasons of a very peculiar and delicate character, he would prefer that 
the resolution proposing the committee of thirteen should be brought forward in 
the Senate by some other individual. I agreed to offer it, on the express condition 
that I should not be made one of its members, and that Mr. Clay himself should 
consent to preside over the deliberations. No one will be surprised to learn that, 
in a day or two after, Mr. Clay and Mr. Ritchie met, became cordially reconciled 
to each other, and consulted together often in the most fraternal manner at every 
stage of the great struggle which at last resulted in the adoption of the compromise 
of 1850. Foote, Casket of Reminiscences, 25-26. 

It is evident from Clay's opposition to the committee of thirteen when it was 
first proposed, and from the course of Ritchie in the Uniona.nd of Foote in the Senate 
that this accoimt of Foote's, given so many years after the interview between him, 
and Clay, was not entirely accurate. But the pages of the Congressional Globe 
and the Washington Union both furnish evidence of an understanding between 
Clay, on the one hand, and Ritchie and Foote, on the other, and there is contempo- 
rary evidence of an interview between Clay and Ritchie that serves to fix the date 
of their understanding more nearly than Foote's reminiscences. The National 
Intelligencer of March 26, 1850, notes the change in the tone of the Union and C. S. 
Morchead, a Whig representative from Kentucky, in a letter to Crittenden, dated 
March 30, gives the foUowmg explanation of the change: "Mr. Clay sent for old 
Mr. Ritchie and had a long confidential conversation with him upon this subject. 
The tone of the Union is evidently changed since that time. You may notice that 
he speaks much of tener in favor of the Union than he did. This is not generally 
known." Coleman, Life of J. J. Crittenden, I, 364. 

'* It was during this struggle over the appointment of the committee of thirteen 
that the disgraceful scene between Foote and Benton took place in which Foote 
"drew a pistol on" Benton. Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., i Sess., 762. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 115 

to 22, for the referring of Clay's resolutions and others of similar 
purport to a select committee of thirteen with instructions to mature 
a plan of compromise for the adjustment of all pending questions 
growing out of the institution of slavery and to report to the Senate 
by bill or otherwise.^^ 

As it had been understood, Clay was selected chairman of the com- 
mittee and the six representatives from each of the two sections were 
evenly divided between the two parties. From the South, the Whigs 
selected were Mangum, Bell, and Berrien and the Democrats were 
Mason, King, and Downs; from the North, the Whigs were Web- 
ster, Cooper, and Phelps and the Democrats, Cass, Bright, and Dic- 
kinson.^'^ It was evident from the composition of the committee that 
Clay's views would prevail and measures would be reported in har- 
mony with his resolutions. 

On May 8, 1850, Clay made the report to the Senate from the com- 
mittee of thirteen and introduced the bills that it had drawn up for 
settling the questions at issue. The recommendations contained in 
his report Clay recapitulated as follows: 

1. The admission of any new State or States formed out of Texas to be post- 
poned until they shall hereafter present themselves to be received into the Union, 
when it will be the duty of Congress fairly and faithfully to execute the compact 
with Texas by admitting such new State or States. 

2. The admission forthwith of CaUfomia into the Union with the boundaries 
which she has proposed. 

3. The establishment of territorial governments without the Wilmot proviso 
for New Mexico and Utah, embracing all the territory recently acquired by the 
United States from Mexico not contained in the boundaries of California. 

4. The combination of these two last-mentioned measures in the same bill. 

5. The estabhshment of the western and northern boundary of Texas, and the 
exclusion from her jurisdiction of all New Mexico, with the grant to Texas of a 
pecuniary equivalent; and the section for that purpose to be incorporated in the 
bill admitting California and establishing territorial governments for Utah and 
New Mexico. 

6. More effectual enactments of law to secure the prompt delivery of persons 
bound to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, who escape mto 
another State. 

And 7. Abstaining from abolishing slavery; but, imder a heave penalty, pro- 
hibiting the slave trade in the District of Columbia.^* 

No minority report was brought in; but Phelps, Cooper, Mason, 



^^Ihid., 774. The resolution was carried by the vote of all the Southern sena- 
tors, both Whigs and Democrats, except Benton, and of seven out of the sixteen 
Northern Democrats. 

" Ihid., 780. 

'* Ibid., 946. 



ii6 Mississippi Historical Society. 

Downs, and Berrien, immediately after the reading of the report, 
made statements to the Senate of the points in the report to which 
they objected. In fact, there was mianimity in the committee only 
in the construction of the compact under which the state of Texas 
was annexed. This, taken with the objections that were immediately 
raised in the Senate against it, furnished ample evidence of the oppo- 
sition the program of the committee would receive in that body. 

What action the Senate and the House would take in regard to these 
recommendations of the committee of thirteen depended on the atti- 
tude of the country toward the question of compromise. The atti- 
tude of Mississippi and the other Southern states may be measured 
by the progress of public sentiment in regard to the Nashville con- 
vention. 



CHAPTER VI. 



THE NASHVILLE CONVENTION. 



The measure around which the leaders of the South sought to de- 
velop the Southern movement and through which they expected to 
unite the South on a definite policy in defense of its interests was a 
convention of all the slaveholding states. As has been seen, the 
measure was advocated in South Carolina and other Southern states 
in the beginning of the struggle over the Wilmot proviso. Although 
it was not mentioned in the Southern address, Calhoun, in his corre- 
spondence, urged on his followers in different states the calling of such 
a convention; and, finally, in accordance with his advice, the conven- 
tion composed of representatives of both political parties in Missis- 
sippi, in October, 1849, called a convention of the slaveholding states 
to meet in Nashville on the first Monday in the following June, "to 
devise and adopt some mode of resistance' ' to the proposed aggres- 
sions against the rights of the South. 

The action of the Mississippi convention met with hearty approval 
both in Mississippi and the other Southern states. The legislature 
of Mississippi, when it met in January, 1850, in addition to sanction- 
ing the calling of the Southern convention, gave that meetmg a more 
formal character by disregarding the appointment of delegates by 
the October convention and appointing others to represent Missis- 
sippi and directing that their expenses should be paid out of the 
state treasury. The legislature, also, pledged the state of Missis- 
sippi to stand by and sustain her sister states of the South in what- 
ever course of action might be determined on by the convention.^ 

Through the press, public meetings, and their legislatures, the other 
slaveholding states expressed their approval of the holding of the 
convention to enable the South to unite in an efifort to preserve its 



^Laws of the State of Mississippi, 1850, 522-526. 

117 



ii8 Mississippi Historical Society. 

rights and save the Union .^ The strength of the movement became 
such, during the stormy days of the efforts to organize the House 
and the first attempts of Congress at legislation, that even the house 
of delegates of the Maryland legislature passed, by a unanimous vote, 
a resolution proclaiming the willingness of Maryland to be repre- 
sented at Nashville.^ 

But, with the arousing of the conservative sentiment in both sec- 
tions and the development of a spirit of compromise, the support 
of the Nashville convention began to decline. As the Southern Whigs 
jomed the movement in favor of the compromise and became more 
and more confident that measures would be devised by Congress 
that they could accept, they began to think that the Nashville con- 
vention was unnecessary and to fear that its influence would be ad- 
verse to measures of adjustment that they would be willing to accept. 
The supporters of the compromise, therefore, sought to discredit 
the convention by urging against it the charge, which its enemies had 
brought against it from the first, that its purpose was to bring about 
a dissolution of the Union.'* 

The effect of the growth of sentiment in favor of the compromise 
and in opposition to the Nashville convention soon made itself felt 
throughout the South. The state legislatures that had not already 
taken action with reference to the selection of delegates to Nash- 
ville refused to do so and in the states where elections had been 
ordered the results were disappointing to the friends of the conven- 
tion.^ Only in South Carolina and Mississippi did public sentiment 
seem to continue in favor of the convention. 

On the latter state rested the responsibility of having called the 

* The approval of the Nashville convention by the legislatures of different South- 
em states may be found as follows: Virginia, National Era, February 21, 1850; 
Georgia, Cong. Globe, appx., 32 Cong., i Sess.,344; Tennessee, National Era, February 
21, 1850; Alabama, New York Semi-weekly Tribune, February 27, 1850; Louisiana, 
Natchez Weekly Courier, March 6, 1850. 

* National Intelligencer, February 2, 1850. 

* National Era, February 21, 1850; New York Semi-weekly Tribune, March 2, 
1850; Ibid., March 30, 1850; National Intelligencer, March 9, 1850; Ibid., March 
26, 1850. 

^ In Virginia, the northwest and Richmond, Petersburg, Norfolk, and the coimty 
of Albemarle voted against sending delegates to the convention. Cong. Globe, 
31 Cong., I Sess., appx., 599. In Tennessee, Nashville itself resolved by an over- 
whelming majority to choose no delegates. Ibid., 600. The vote in the election 
of delegates in Georgia was so light as to amount to a condemnation of the con- 
vention. New York Semi-weekly Tribune, April 20, 1850. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 119 

convention and, as both parties were equally responsible, neither 
could lightly turn against the measure or charge it with having been 
designed for the purpose of disunion. As the delegates had already 
been appointed, there was no opportunty of testing the popular 
sentiment in the state in favor of withdrawing from the movement. 
But in Mississippi, as elsewhere in the South, as the sentiment in 
favor of compromise developed, the Whigs began to turn from the 
support of the Nashville convention. As early as March 9, a public 
meeting in Hinds county declared that, since it was evident that 
Congress would not pass the Wilmot proviso and infringe upon the 
rights of the South in the new territories, it was advisable to 
abandon the Nashville convention ."^ 

By the first of April, the Columbus Whig, among other papers, was 
engaged in belittling the convention. It asserted in its issue of April 

So far as our views are concerned, we are amongst the number of those who 
attach little or no importance to the proposed meeting. We regard it much less 
incapable of harm than its enemies apprehend, and far less powerful for good than 
its friends imagine. It is now, we think, reduced to a certainty that the convention, 
if held at all, will be too limited, in representation and numbers, to secure much 
"faith or credit to its official acts" in behalf of the whole South. Not only from 
present indications will a large number of the Southern States be imrepre- 
sented, but the delegates from those that are, in the absence of a popular commis- 
sion, will hardly be able to consider themselves as the regularly constituted minis- 
ters of State sovereignty, or even as the accredited organs of Southern sentiment. 
In this state of things, the gentlemen who attend the deliberations at Nashville 
will simply exercise the right which we all have of expressing our private and indi- 
vidual opinions upon questions of public interest. Should they assume to do any- 
thing more, such usurped privileges would meet the disregard, as the convention 
itself seems to have met the indifference of the people.' 

By the time of the report from the committee of thirteen, even 
Judge Sharkey was convinced that "the convention movement would 
result in a total failure." To him: 

It seemed impossible to rally the South in vindication of her rights. The ad- 
vices from Washington City seemed to dispel any hope of a creditable convention, 
and a failure could have no other effect than to encourage the aggressions on the 
South.8 



* National Intelligencer, April 6, 1850. 

' Quoted from the Columbus Whig in the Hinds County Gazette, April 19, 1850. 

» Letter from Judge Sharkey to the editor of the Southron, Jackson, June 21, 
1850, in which he explains his letter to Foote approving the compromise. Mis- 
sissippi Free Trader, July 3, 1850. 



I20 Mississippi Historical Society. 

Therefore, believing that the compromise formulated by the com- 
mittee of thirteen was the best that could possibly be obtained,^ he 
gave in his adherence to that measure. He, also, advised Foote to 
support the compromise in the Senate and assured him that the mass 
of the Southern people would be content with it and that he would 
be sustained in its support by the Whigs generally and, also, by the 
moderate men of his own party.^" 

In the meantime, the Democratic party in Mississippi, not satisfied 
with the measures of compromise the Southern Whigs were becoming 
willing to accept and undaunted by the evidences of a falling off in 
the support of the Nashville convention, remained true, in the main, 
to its earlier views in regard to a Southern convention.^^ In early 
April the Mississippi Free Trader sought to stay the progress of senti- 
ment in favor of compromise and in opposition to the convention by 
calling attention to the disapproval of Webster's seventh of March 



^Mississippi Free Trader, July 3, 1850. 

^^ The letter from Sharkey to Foote in answer to one from Foote asking advice 
in regard to his course on the compromise is an interesting bit of evidence both as 
to the progress of sentiment in Mississippi in favor of the compromise and also as 
to the "rapprochement" between Foote and the Whigs of Mississippi. Sharkey 
writes to Foote: "I have watched your course with great interest. I am not 
a politician, and I flatter myself sufficiently above party bias to view events 
dispassionately. Your whole course on the compromise question is commendable 



"We must take things as they are and not as we would have them and shape our 
conduct according to exigencies. It would have been folly to have insisted on what 
you and I regard as strictly Southern rights. Nothing could have been obtained 
by that course. If the compromise can be adopted, our honor at least is safe. In- 
deed, it secures the principle for which we have been contending. The mass of 
the Southern people would be content with it. True, it does not suit all men. . . 
Could you do anything that would please all even of your own party? I think not. 
Ultra men can never be pleased. . . . Take my word for it, conservative men 
will approve your course. The Whigs generally approve it, and the moderate men 
of your own party. In short, I think it will be approved by the people. . . 

"I will proceed to answer your specific interrogatory. After stating the terms 
of the compromise as agreed on by the committee, if I mistake them not, you ask 
'would we be justified in supporting this plan of settlement?' I think you would. 
I would do so were I in your place. I have conversed with many men of both par- 
ties on this subject, and I do not think I can be mistaken in saying you will be sus- 
tained in that course. A few, chiefly of your own party, would not approve, but 
I think the number will be small. Indeed, I think if the compromise can be ac- 
complished, it would be a subject of general rejoicing in this State. I say this, 
too, whilst I would oppose the admission of Cal. as a distinct proposition, not on 
constitutional grounds, but for other reasons." Natchez Weeklly Courier, June 
18, 1850. 

" Resolutions of a public meeting of the people of Lafayette county, Oxford, 
April 30, 1850. The Organizer, May 6, 1850. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 121 

speech in the North and the approval of leading Whig papers of that 
section of Seward's "infamous speech." It assured the people of 
Mississippi that they had little to expect from Congress in the ad- 
justment of the existing difficulties and that the only reason that 
the Northern majority hesitated to pass the measures of legislation 
objectionable to the South was that they feared that it might be in 
earnest in its expression of a determination to resist such measures. 
This the Free Trader urged should show the importance of the South- 
ern states' acting together in the Nashville convention.^^ 

The position of those who continued unwavering in their support 
of the convention and their opposition to the proposed measures of 
compromise was definitely set forth at a public meeting of the citizens 
of Hinds county held at Raymond, April 8, 1850, to consider the 
action of the legislature in regard to the admission of California and 
the calling of a Southern convention.^' In the resolutions adopted, 
those taking part in the meeting expressed the belief that the holding 
of the convention was the most feasible mode that had been proposed 
of sustaining the compromises of the constitution and, through them, 
the rights of the South and thereby preserving the Union; and pledged 
their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to sustain the meas- 
ures that it should agree upon. They held the failure of the South- 
ern states to respond promptly to the recommendation for the con- 
vention responsible for their not having long since secured all the 
constitution held out to them and, therefore, severely censured those 
who had been active in exciting opposition to the convention. They 
also denied that those engaged in such proceedings were sustained 
by the sympathy or support of any considerable portion of either 
party in the state of Mississippi. 

In regard to the charge that the design of the convention was to 
dissolve the Union, they declared that it was false and calumnious so 
far as the action of the people of Mississippi or of their legislature 
was concerned; but they added that the question involved was a vital 
one to them and that their rights under the constitution they were 
determined to protect in the Union if they could, but out of the Union 
if they must. They asserted, furthermore, that in all the controversy 

" Mississippi Free Trader, April 3, 1850. . j u ^u r * 

i» The political character of the meeting may be easily determmed by the tact 
that Governor Quitman and C. R. Clifton delivered formal addresses before it. 



122 Mississippi Historical Society. 

the South had constantly stood on the defensive and on the consti- 
tution, and that, while it maintained that position, it could never be 
responsible for the dissolution of the Union; and, finally, that, with- 
out the compromises adopted in the constitution, the Union never 
could have been formed and that, if they were violated, the Union 
would be dissolved and the constitutional rights of the states de- 
stroyed, even though no state should secede. 

With reference to the measures that they wished considered and 
proposed by the Nashville convention, they declared that they were 
opposed to any settlement that would not fully secure their constitu- 
tional rights and place them for all time to come beyond the agitation 
and aggressions of those who had waged unceasing was against them 
for twenty years.^* 

As the time for the assembling of the convention approached, 
the press was filled with expressions of opinion as to what it should 
do. Perhaps Fehx Huston most accurately expressed the views of 
the radical pro-slavery Democrats on that subject when he declared, 
in an open letter to the members of the Nashville convention, that 
the purpose of their assembling in convention was to take "into con- 
sideration the proper course for the slaveholding states to pursue in 

^* Resolutions of the Public Meeting at Ra5Tnond, April 8, 1850, Mississippi 
Free Trader, May 4, 1850. 

In the final resolution of the series, the meeting requested the delegates from 
Mississippi to bring before the Nashville convention for its consideration and delib- 
eration a list of subjects that reveals clearly the fears for the future that were 
beginning to arouse in the non-slaveholders as well as the slaveholders of Missis- 
sippi the conviction that their interests were not safe within the Union. The list 
is as follows: 

"i. By the expiration of the present century, which of the present slave states 
wiU probably become free ones? 2. By the same period the probable black popula- 
tion of the United States? 3. The population of slaves to the square mile, which the 
then slave states may be able to bear in tranquillity, with a due proportion of whites, 
bearing in mind that at the commencement of the revolution in St. Domingo, the 
blacks were less than fifteen to the square mile? 4. The legislation by Congress 
necessary to produce and perpetuate an equilibrium in the two portions of the 
confederacy? 5. Whenever the free states constitute three-fourths of the Con- 
federacy, is it not to be apprehended that the Constitution of the United States 
will be amended, and slavery abolished throughout the Union, and is it not rea- 
sonable to believe it may be done at no remote period? 6. Nearly all of the free 
states having prohibited the ingress of free blacks, and the prominent abolitionists 
being opposed to colonization, it is not to be inferred that there is a fixed design 
that the home of the black men shall be upon the soil last trod by the slave? 7. 
As the slaves are being rapidly moved to the Southwest, is it not to be presimied 
that whenever a general emancipation takes place, several of the southwestern 
states will be abandoned by the whites and entirely populated by the blacks?" 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hear on. 123 

order to secure their rights imder the Constitution of the United States 
and preserve their equality as members of the Confederacy; or, fail- 
ing therein, bring about a separation of the Union, and the establish- 
ment of a Southern Confederacy."^^ 

On the other hand, T. J. Wood, a Whig delegate to the Nashville 
convention had a very different opinion as to what the proceedings 
of the convention should be. He writes the editor of the Safeguard: 

I can say that I suppose the Legislature intended by its action that the conven- 
tion ought to meet; that it ought to set forth in a strong and unequivocal manner, 
the aggressions of the North upon our rights; that it ought to point out the viola- 
tions of the Constitution; that it ought to say to the North "thus far you may 
come, but no farther. "^^ 

The Southern convention assembled in Nashville, June 3, 1850. 
The lack of support that had been long foretold for it was realized; 
for only nine of the slaveholding states were represented^^ and those, 



1* Mississippi Free Trader, May 25, 1850. 

16 Letter of T. J. Wood to W. P. Donnel, Editor of the Safeguard, Pontotoc, 
April 22, 1850, The Organizer, May 11, 1850. 

In this letter, in answering the question, addressed to him by the editor of the Safe- 
guard, "Do you, as one of the delegates, feel yourself authorized to attend a meet- 
ing that has for one of its objects, secession from the Union?" Wood made a skill- 
ful defense of the convention against that charge. "This interrogatory seems to 
assume, as a fact," he asserts, "that one of the objects of the Convention at Nash- 
ville, IS SECESSION. I have not so understood the objects of the Convention. 
But on the contrary, the principal object of the Nashville Convention, as I have 
imderstood is to call our erring brethren of the North, back into the Union. I 
hold that when Congress or the Government of the United States disregards the 
Constitution, its acts are without authority. I hold that when Congress or the 
Government of the United States takes jurisdiction of the subject of slavery, for 
any other purpose than to fix the ratio of representation, direct taxes, and to pro- 
vide for the recapture of fugitive slaves, the Congress or the Government itself, so 
far as any such act is concerned, (except the three cases above enumerated) has 
seceded from the Union. I go further and say that the Northern States of this con- 
federacy, by failing to execute that clause of the Constitution which binds them 
to give up our run-away slaves, have as to that subject, seceded and dissolved the 
Union. And that the Union without that clause of the Constitution, is not the 
Union, handed down to us by our fathers. It is not such a Union as they would 
have formed nor is it such a Union as we ought to form or submit to, OR DESIRE TO 
SEE CONTINUED. And, in my judgment, the objects of the Nashville Con- 
vention are to call the Northern States, the Northern people and the Congress and 
Government of the United States back to the Union, and to pomt out the dangers 
of secession, to take steps by united and concerted action, throughout the whole 
South, without distmction of party, whether Democrats or Whigs— progressive 
or conservative— to resist at aU hazards, these dangerous departures from the 
Union— the Union given to us by our fathers— the Union upon the Constitution, 
in letter and in spirit— and to prevent the calamities of secession and disunion 

" The National Intelligencer, of June 8, gives 6 delegates from Virginia, 17 from 
South Carolina, 12 from Georgia, 21 from Alabama, 11 from Mississippi, i from 



1 24 Mississippi Historical Society. 

for the most part, by very few delegates or delegates whose creden- 
tials v/ere not of such character as to give weight to the proceedings 
of the convention. ^^ 

Mississippi was represented by the full number of delegates fixed 
by the October convention and confirmed by the legislature. But 
the difference in the support given the convention by the two parties 
in Mississippi is clearly indicated by the fact that every delegate 
appointed by the legislature from the Democratic party attended, 
while only three of the Whigs appointed were present.^^ 

In organizing the convention, W. L. Sharkey, as head of the Mis- 
sissippi delegation and presiding ofBcer of the Mississippi convention 
that had called the Nashville assembly, was naturally chosen president 
of that body. But since he was present in Nashville as much in the 
hope of preventing the convention from taking any radical action 
that would prevent Congress from passing measures of compromise 
as in the expectation that it could devise means to induce that body 
to modify those measures in favor of the South, his selection was a 
point in favor of the conservative forces at Nashville. In his opening 
address, he sought to make the preservation of the Union the key 
note of the convention and to incline the members of that body to 
moderation by impressing on them that the convention was called 
to perpetuate the Union and not to dissolve it.^"* 

Texas, 2 from Arkansas, 6 from Florida, and a large number from Tennessee. The 
National Era, of June 13, gives 8 from Georgia, 19 from South Carolina, 11 from 
Mississippi, 18 from Alabama, 2 from Arkansas, i from Florida, 2 from Texas, 
and 3 from Virginia. 

1" Hinds County Gazette, April 19, 1850. National Intelligencer, New York Tri- 
bune, and National Era, February-May, 1850. The National Intelligencer of July 
13, 1850, states that only South Carolina was regularly represented in the Nash- 
ville Convention since in that state alone were the delegates chosen by the people. 
Alabama and Mississippi were represented, but irregularly, since their delegates 
were chosen by the legislatures. But the other Southern states counted as present 
had only a few delegates each, in the convention. 

1* The National Era of June 13, 1850, gives a list of the delegates from Missis- 
sippi as follows: Judge Sharkey, Judge Smith, Judge Clayton, Governor Matthews, 
Col. Wood, Maj. Neil, Messrs. Pettus, Prewit, Speight, McRay, Wilkinson. But 
the New York Tribune, of June 7, states that T. Jones Stewart took his seat on June 
S an'l that Murphy and Campbell were appointed from Mississippi on the com- 
mittee on resolutions. The Tribune of June 12 also says that a resolution was 
was introduced by Walker, of Mississippi. However, among these, only Stewart 
was one of the delegates appointed by the legislature. The delegates from Missis- 
sippi who were not appointed by the legislature may have been named by that body 
as alternates. 

^^ New York Semi-weekly Tribune, June 5, 1850. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 125 

The great question before the convention, as before the country, 
was whether it would approve the plan of settlement embodied in the 
report of the committee of thirteen. The members of the convention, 
however, showed little disposition to accept the measure proposed 
by that committee, but unanimously adopted resolutions sustaining 
the position with reference to the demands of the South that had 
been taken in Congress and consistently maintained by Jefferson 
Davis and other members of that body from the South. 

In these resolutions, they denied Congress any power imder the 
constitution to create or destroy slavery anywhere and affirmed that 
it could derive no such power from foreign laws, treaties, the laws of 
nations, or any other source but an amendment of the constitution 
itself. They also denied the power of Congress to regulate or prohibit 
the slave trade between the states and asserted that it was the duty 
of that body to provide a more effective fugitive slave law.^^ With 
reference to the extension of slavery in the territories, the conven- 
tion declared that the territories were the common property of the 
United States, that the citizens of the several states had an equal 
right to migrate with their property to those territories and were 
equally entitled to the protection of the federal government in the 
enjoyment of that property as long as the territories remained under 
the charge of the government, that it was the duty of Congress to 
pass laws recognizing and protecting those rights, and that, by the 
performance of its duty. Congress would remove the embarrassments 
in which the country was then involved. But they added that, in 
the event a dominant majority should refuse to recognize the great 
constitutional rights they asserted and should continue to deny the 
obligations of the federal government to maintain them, it was the 
sense of the convention that the territories should be treated as 
property and divided between the sections of the Union, so that the 
rights of both sections should be adequately secured in their re- 
spective shares. Though the members of the convention admitted 
that the course was open to grave objections, they asserted that they 
were ready "to acquiesce in the adoption of the line 36° 30' north 
latitude, extending to the Pacific ocean, as an extreme concession," 
upon considerations of what was due to the stability of their institu- 
tions. 

21 Second series of resolutions adopted by the Nashville convention, National 
Intelligencer, July 13, 1850. 



126 Mississippi Historical Society. 

But having taken the extreme Southern position in regard to the 
terms of settlement the South would accept, the convention was 
unwilling to commit that section to a definite policy of resistance in 
case its demands were not granted and stopped short of fulfilling the 
purpose for which it was called. For, although the object of the 
slaveholding states in meeting in convention, as stated in the resolu- 
tion of the October convention of Mississippi calling them together, 
was "to devise and adopt some mode of resistance" to the aggres- 
sions against their rights threatened in Congress, the Nashville con- 
vention took the position that it would not conclude that Congress 
would adjourn without making an adjustment of the controversy; 
and that, in the condition in which it found the question before Con- 
gress, it did not "feel at liberty to discuss the methods suitable for a 
resistance to measures not yet adopted, which might involve dis- 
honor to the Southern States."^ Accordingly it deferred the question 
of resistance to the second meeting of the convention to be held at 
Nashville six weeks after the adjournment of Congress.^* 

The address to the people of the slaveholding states issued by the 
convention was a more radical document than the resolutions. In 
recounting the history of the agitation against slavery, the address 
set forth aboHtion as the ultimate end of it all and the logic of its 
reasoning admitted only one conclusion and that was that safety for 
the South was to be found only without the Union. It wholly con- 
demned the measures of compromise reported from the committee 
of thirteen. The admission of California, it declared, was simply 
the enactment by Congress of the Wilmot proviso in another form; 
the adjustment of the Texas boundary took from Texas territory 
sufficient for two large states and, no matter what the territorial 
bills contained with reference to slavery, gave it up to be free territory 
and thus, also, effectively hemmed in the slaveholding states on their 
western boundary; in forbidding the slave trade in the District of 
Columbia, Congress simply began the aboHtion of slavery there; and, 
finally, an effective fugitive slave law was the constitutional right of 
the South and could not be considered by that section as compensa- 
tion for the sacrifices it was asked to make to the prejudices of the 
North. 

^ First series of resolutions adopted by the October convention, National Intelli- 
gencer, July 13, 1850. 

^ Second series of resolutions adopted by the October convention, Ibid. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hear on. 127 

The address asserted, with the resolutions, that the only compro- 
mise that the South could accept was the extension of the Missouri 
Compromise to the Pacific, with a distinct recognition of the right 
of the citizens of the Southern states to enter, with their slaves, the 
territory south of the line 36° 30'. 

In conclusion, the address admitted that the delegates of the con- 
vention were not entirely unanimous in the approval of all its argu- 
ments, particularly those that related to the compromise bills pend- 
ing in the Senate, but it asserted that none of them were in favor of 
those bills unless they were amended in conformity with the resolu- 
tions of the convention or in some other way so as to secure Southern 
rights.24 

In Mississippi, as elsewhere, the proceedings of the Nashville con- 
vention had little effect on public sentiment.^^ Though Judge Sharkey 
trusted that the whole South would unite, in a spirit of firm de- 
termination, to insist upon the line of compromise recommended by 
the convention^® and other leaders of the state urged that the bills 
reported from the committee of thirteen contained no concession to 
the Southern states and that they could obtain the compromise 
demanded by the Nashville convention if they would only unite upon 
it,2^ the conservatives in the state had given up all hope of obtaining 
such a concession and turned more and more to the support of the 
measures of compromise before the Senate as the best poUcy for the 
South imder the circumstances. 

On the other hand the opponents of the compromise devised by 
the committee of thirteen, through public meetings and through the 

2* Address to the People of Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Caro- 
lina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, Texas, Missouri, 
Mississippi, and Arkansas, National Intelligencer, July 13, 1850. 

This address was written by Robert Barnwell Rhett, of South Carolina. It was 
adopted unanimously in the vote given by states; but the delegates being given 
an opportunity to enroll their names for or against it, the following voted against: 
Davis, Abercrombie, Murphy, Judge Byrd, Hunter of Alabama, Gholson of Vir- 
ginia, Freeman of Florida, Sharkey of Mississippi, New York Semi-weekly Tribune, 
July IS, 1850. 

^ The National Era, June 20, 1850, says, with reference to the Nashville conven- 
tion, "Its proceedmgs have excited little mterest. It was an abortion and is not 
worth a word of comment." 

*« Letter from Judge Sharkey to the Editor of the Southron, Jackson, June 21, 
1850, Mississippi Free Trader, July 3, 1850. 

" Letter of W. S. Featherston, July 12, 1850, Mississippi Free Trader, August 
7, 1850. 



128 Mississippi Historical Society. 

Democratic press, enthusiastically supported the demands of the 
Nashville convention.^^ The line of 36° 30', as established by the 
Missouri compromise, they considered "as fair and equitable an 
adjustment of the question as the South should offer;"^^ and declared 
that as the South had been thus liberal with a view of preserving the 
Union, she ought not to forget that she owed a corresponding duty 
to herself, the duty of "maintaining her position with unwavering 
determination, without regard to consequences."'" 

In regard to the address, the supporters of the compromise differed 
very materially from its opponents. The former declared that the 
ultraism of the address "would kill any cause or party — east, west, 
north or south — on earth below, or in the skies above, in Hell or 
in Heaven. "'1 While the latter characterized it as a "calm, dispas- 
sionate, truthful, and able recitation of the wrongs that had been in- 
flicted on the South'''^ and held that its criticism of the report of the 
committee of thirteen was masterful and unanswerable.^' 

However, notwithstanding the support the address and the reso- 
lutions received in Mississippi and the other Southern states, the 
Nashville convention served only to reveal more clearly, what had 
been apparent to many for several months, that the great effort of 
the leaders of the Southern movement to unite the South in the support 
of a definite program with reference to questions before Congress 
concerning slavery had signally failed. Therefore, the convention 
had little or no influence on the progress of the compromise meas- 
ures through Congress. 

28 Public Meeting in Jasper County, Mississippi Free Trader, August 14, 1850; 
The Southern Meeting in Wilkinson County, Ibid., August 28, 1850; The Attala 
Democrat, July 13, 1850; The Vicksburg Sentinel, July 6, 1850, declared: "We most 
religiously believe that nine-tenth of our people approve the action and recom- 
mendations of the convention." 

29 Public Meeting in Lafayette county, Oxford, July 11, 1850, The Organizer, 
July 13, 1850. 

^° Ibid., June 29, 1850. 

" Quoted from the Columbus Democrat in the Natchez Semi-weekly Courier, August 
6, 1850. According to Jefferson Davis the Columbus Democrat awas the only Demo- 
cratic paper in Mississippi that supported the compromise at this time. 

^ Ibid., June 29, 1850. 

'' Carrollton Mississippi Democrat, June 29, 1850; Paulding Clarion, June 29, 
1850. 



CHAPTER VII. 

THE PASSAGE OF THE COMPROMISE. 

The recommendations reported to the Senate from the committee 
of thirteen, as will readily be seen, were, in the main, those embodied 
in Clay's resolutions of January 29, which had failed so entirely to 
satisfy the demands of the members of Congress from Mississippi. 
In the meantime, the position of Davis and the representatives from 
Mississippi had not varied and it is easy to determine what would 
be their attitude in regard to the bills reported from the committee. 
But since Foote's break with Calhoun over the amendment to the 
constitution proposed by the latter in his fourth of March speech, 
it had been becoming more and more apparent that he was approach- 
ing the position of the Southern Whigs and becoming willing to agree 
to the admission of California with the boundaries that it proposed, 
provided the remainder of the territory' acquired from Mexico was 
organized under territorial governments without reference to slavery. 

During this period, Foote had directed his efforts, for the most 
part, against the passage of the California bill as a separate measure 
and for the combining of it in a general scheme of compromise. With 
these ends in view, he had urged the appointment of the committee 
of thirteen and, together with Thomas Ritchie, had entered into an 
understanding with Clay that, without doubt, included both the 
formation of the committee of thirteen and the measures of compro- 
mise that it should propose. For before Clay made the report from 
the committee to the Senate, Foote was using his influence with Demo- 
cratic senators from the South in favor of the bills to be proposed.^ 
Later amid the chorus of objections from Southern senators agamst 
the report and the bills of compromise, when they were submitted to 
the Senate, Foote came out openly in their support though he deemed 
it better policy not to commit himself to them too completely, I at 
first. He declared in the Senate: 

^ Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., i Sess., 952-953- 

129 



i^o Mississippi Historical Society. 

The general tone and bearing of the report, awakened my highest admiration. 
Though there may be some features in the plan to which, hereafter, I may feel 
compelled to express some objection, I must confess that I have heard nothmg 
yet that could induce me, even in a whisper to suggest disapproval of the labors 
of the committee. I do not doubt, Sir, that this report will be adopted in the mam; 
that it will be approved as a whole. It may undergo some modification of a 
trivial character, but whether it should undergo modification or not, I do not 
doubt, that it wUl tend to settle the great questions which have so long vexed the 
peace of the country. 

Furthermore, Foote threw down the gage of battle to his former 
friends in Congress from Mississippi and the other Southern states 
by assuring them that as much as he should delight to cooperate 
with them, if it should turn out that he could concur with the cojn- 
mittee, he would endeavor in every way to satisfy his countrymen. 
North, South, East, and West, that the report was worthy of their 
approval.- 

Jefferson Da\ds, on the day of the report from the committee of 
thirteen, contented himself with asserting that the object of the re- 
port of the committee was to support the bills that had been intro- 
duced into the Senate by the territorial committee and that, since 
he had been opposed to those bills when they had been separately 
introduced into the Senate and had found no new reasons for support- 
ing them, he must be opposed to them when they were connected.^ 

The members of the House from Mississippi had not experienced 
any change of heart with reference to the compromise and were, 
therefore, ready to align themselves with Davis in opposition to the 
plan proposed by the committee of thirteen. Since there was com- 
plete agreement among them on the essential points of the questions 
at issue, the letter of A. G. Brown, ever the most aggressive and out- 
spoken, to his constituents may be regarded as expressing not simply 



- Speech of Foote, May 8, 1850, Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., i Sess., 952. 

Additional evidence of the growing divergence between Foote and the other 
members of Congress from Mississippi was given in the "Address to the People 
of the Southern States" by Southern members of both houses of Congress with 
reference to the establishment in Washington of a paper that should be devoted to 
the rights and interests of the South, so far as they ware involved in the questions 
growing out of African slavery. The address was drawn up May 6, and was signed 
by sixty-four members of Congress from the South, including all from Mississippi 
except Foote. But, as the movement for the establishment of a Southern organ 
in Washington was regarded as a rebuke to Ritchie for the course that had been 
taken by the Washington Union in regard to the compromise, Foote, ver>' naturally, 
did not' sign the address. The address is goven in Cluskey, Political Text-Book, 

'^ Speech of Jefferson Davis, May 8, 1850, Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., i Sess., 956. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hear on. 131 

his own views in regard to the compromise, but those of his col- 
leagues as well. 

In this letter, after a long argument to prove that the course of 
both the administration and Congress with reference to California 
and the other territories acquired from Mexico had been adverse to 
the interests of the South, Brown proceeded to enquire whether the 
measures proposed in the first bill reported from the committee of 
thirteen offered a compromise with reference to the extension of slav- 
ery worthy of the consideration and the support of his constituents. 
He asserted that the admission of California into the Union under 
its constitution excluding slavery was equivalent to the passage by 
Congress of the Wilmot proviso, and that the question was whether 
the South was offered any adequate consideration for the sacrifice 
of feeling and principle it would make in admitting California. 

In considering the rest of the bill with reference to this point, he 
asserted that by the terms of the resolutions annexing Texas to the 
United States, the South had the clearest possible recognition of the 
title of Texas to the country up to 36° 30' as slave territory; and that, 
since he believed that the territory sold out and annexed to New 
Mexico would be dedicated to free soil and that its institutions would 
be anti-slavery, that part of the proposed bargain by which Texas 
was to cede to New Mexico a portion of her territory nearly twice as 
large as the state of Mississippi and to receive from the United States 
in payment a sum of from five to fifteen million dollars, of which the 
South would have to pay more than its due proportion, did not make 
the admission to California a whit more palatable to him. 

In regard to the last proposition in the bill, namely, the establish- 
ment of territorial governments for New Mexico and Utah without 
the "Wilmot proviso," Brown declared that if that were an indepen- 
dent proposition tendered in good faith and accepted by the North 
with a fixed purpose to abide by it, he would have no hesitation in 
saying that it would receive his cordial support, for while he demanded 
that Congress should not oppose the entrance of Southerners into the 
territories with their slaves, he did not ask it to assist them in gomg 
there. But he assiured his constituents that the measure was not 
tendered in good faith and that the North had no intention of abiding 
by it. He informed them: 

Mr. Webster is positive that we can never introduce slaves into the territory. 
"The laws of God," he thinks, will forever forbid it. He, and those who go with 



132 Mississippi Historical Society. 

him, will not vote for the "proviso," because it is unnecessary. They are opposed, 
xmcompromisingly opposed, to the introduction of slaves into the territories; and 
they are ready to do anything that may be found necessary to keep them out. It 
is easy to see what they will do, if we commence introducing our slaves. They 
will at once say, "The laws of God" having failed us, we must try what virtue there 
is in the " Wilmot proviso." Mr. Clay and those who follow him are quite certain 
that "we are already excluded by the laws of Mexico." They, too, are opposed 
to the introduction of slavery into the territories, and stand ready to see it excluded. 
The Northern men who stand out against the compromise, insist, and will continue 
to insist, on the Wilmot proviso, as the only certain guarantee that slavery will 
be permanently excluded. All, all are opposed to our going in with our slaves, 
and all are ready to employ whatever means may be necessary to keep us out. I 
assert the fact distinctly and emphatically, that we are told every day, that if we 
attempt to introduce our slaves at any time into New Mexico or Utah, there will 
be an immediate application of the "Wilmot proviso," to keep us out. Mark you 
the proposition is to give territorial governments to New Mexico and Utah. These 
are but congressional acts, and may be altered, amended, explained, or repealed, 
at pleasure. 

No one here imderstands we are entering onto a compact, and no Northern man 
votes for this compromise with the expectation or imderstanding that we are to take 
our slaves into the territories. Whatever additional legislation may be found neces- 
sary hereafter to effect our perfect exclusion, we are given distinctly to understand 
will be resorted to. 

Brown also found in this section of the bill an additional difficulty 
to the extension of slavery, a more serious obstacle than either the 
"laws of God" of Webster or the ''laws of Mexico" of Clay, a provi- 
sion as prohibitory as the proviso itself. This was the denial to the 
territorial legislature of the right to legislate in respect to African 
slavery. 

"With these facts before us, it becomes us to enquire how much we 
give and how much we take, in voting for Mr. Clay's bill," Brown 
asserts; and sums up the answer to these enquiries as foUows: 

We admit California, and, being once in, the question is settled so far as she is 
concerned. We can never get her out by any process short of a dissolution of the 
Union. We give up a part of pro-slavery Texas, and we give it beyond redemption 

and forever. Our part of the bargain is binding This much we give; 

now what do we take? We get a government for New Mexico and Utah, without 
the Wilmot proviso, but with a declaration that we are excluded already "by the 
laws of God and the Mexican nation," or get it with a prohibition against territorial 
legislation on the subject of slavery, and with a distinct threat constantly hanging 
over us, that if we attempt to introduce slaves against these prohibitions, the "Wil- 
mot proviso" will be instantly applied for our more effectual exclusion. 

In conclusion, he assures his constituents that he cannot vote for 
Clay's compromise. With very essential changes and modifications 
he might be reconciled to its support, but these he has no hope of 
obtaining and, therefore, he expects to vote against it.* 

* Letter of A. G. Brown to His Constituents, Washington City, May 13, 1850, 
Cluskey, Speeches, Messages and Other Writings of the Hon. A. G. Brown. 178-190. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hear on. 133 

The views expressed by Brown in this letter represented not simply 
the sentiment of the members of the House from Mississippi, but 
also that of the Southern Democrats, generally, in both the Senate 
and the House. They, therefore, together with the Northern Whigs 
and the members of the Free Soil party, who were equally dissatis- 
fied with the terms of the compromise, opposed the passage of the 
bills and, aided by the influence of the administration, succeeded in 
blocking their way through the Senate; while the supporters of the 
compromise, for the most part Southern Whigs and Northern Demo- 
crats, conferred daily under the leadership of Clay, assisted by Web- 
ster and Cass, to promote their passage.^ 

For nearly three months "the bill for the admission of California 
as a state into the Union, to establish territorial governments for 
Utah and New Mexico, and making proposals to Texas for the estab- 
lishment of her western and northwestern boundaries," or "the Omni- 
bus bill," was before the Senate for consideration almost daily. The 
opponents of the measure conducted their long fight against it through 
a series of amendments, by which the Southern Democrats, at least, 
hoped to modify the bills so that they would meet the demands of 
their section or, failing in this, to make the measures more objection- 
able to the North and thus secure their defeat.^ 

In these efforts to amend the Omnibus bill to meet the demands of 
the South, the Southern Democrats were supported by Southern 
Whigs who were not entirely satisfied with the terms of the compro- 
mise. They understood as perfectly as the Southern Democrats 
that local laws in respect to African slavery were necessary wherever 
such property was held and that the clause in the territorial bill that 
denied the territorial legislatures the power to pass a law "in respect 
to African slavery" would effectively prevent the establishment of 
slavery in New Mexico and Utah.^ Therefore, they joined the South- 
ern Democrats in support of the amendment offered by Jefferson 
Davis to substitute for the objectionable phrase one forbidding the 
territorial legislature to pass any law interfering "with those rights 



6 Speech of Douglas, September 9, 1859, Quoted in Rhodes, History of the United 
States, I., 173; Speech of Davis, Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., i Sess., Appx., 1573. 
* Speech of Davis, Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., i Sess., 1083. 
T Letter of A. H. Stephens to his brother. May 10. 1850, Johnston and Browne, 

Life of A.H. Stevens, 255. 



134 - Mississippi Historical Society. 

of property growing out of the institution of African slavery as it 
exists in any of the States in the Union."^ 

During the weeks in which the Senate debated this amendment, 
the difference in the attitude of the senators from Mississippi toward 
the compromise developed more fully and Foote's poHcy of voting 
for the measures favored by his colleague and the other Democratic 
senators from the South and, at the same time, supporting the com- 
promise was revealed. Although Foote declared that he could see 
no necessity for any restriction's being imposed "in respect to the 
system of African slaver>%" upon the territorial governments about 
to be established, since the courts of the country would be bound to 
declare, on the one hand, a law passed by a territorial legislature ex- 
cluding slavery void and, on the other, one protecting slavery valid, 
and that he preferred a simple territorial government leaving the 
people who inhabited the territories the power to regulate all their 
domestic concerns, yet he asserted that, if his friends from the South 
insisted upon the imposition by Congress of restrictions upon terri- 
torial legislation in regard to that subject, he would be willing to vote 
for the restrictive clause contended for in almost any form which it 
could be made to assume.^ 

At this time, however, Foote had openly joined the party that had 
formed around Clay and was enthusiastically working for the passage 
of the conpromise. In defending himself from the charge of incon- 
sistency, he declared that the compromise bills contained the meas- 
ures that he had been laboring for since the beginning of the session: 
a bill for the admission of California as a state, as part of a general 
scheme of settlement; a proposition to establish territorial govern- 
ments for New Mexico and Utah without the Wilmot proviso — all 
that the South had desired on that head twelve months before; a 
proposition for the adjustment of the Texas and New Mexico bound- 
ary question upon satisfactory principles; and finally an efficient bill 

« Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., i Sess., 1003, May 15, 1850. 

This amendment Davis modified at the request of Senator Pratt, of Maryland, 
a Whig, by substituting a phrase forbidding the territorial legislature "to intro- 
duce or' exclude African slavery" and adding as a proviso "that nothing herein 
contained shall be construed so as to prevent said territorial legislature from passing 
such laws as may be necessary for the protection of the rights of property of every 
kind which may have been of may be hereafter introduced into said territorj'," 
Ibid., 1019, 1074. 

9 Speech of Foote, May 15, fhid., appx., 581. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hear on. 135 

for the restoration of fugitives from labor. He begged his colleagues 
to bear in mind that: 

They must vote for the compromise or they must sustain the policy of non- 
action. They must agree to the admission of California, coupled with certain 
compensating advantages of inestimable value, or they must prepare to see Cali- 
fornia come in alone; the territories without governments; the Texas and New 
Mexico boundary line unsettled; and the fugitive slave bill (the only truly efficient 
bill of the kind ever yet devised) subjected to defeat.'" 

Davis, on the other hand, actively engaged with other Southern 
Democrats in efforts to secure amendments to the "Omnibus bill," 
and although he refused to discuss that measure until it had passed 
all the proposed stages of amendment, he let it be distinctly under- 
stood that he would not support it unless it was materially amended.^^ 

During the long months of bitter struggle in the Senate that followed, 
the course of the two senators from Mississippi in regard to the com- 
promise continued along the lines that had been marked out in the 
days immediately following the report of the committee of thirteen. 
Jefferson Davis bent every effort to amend the bills so as to secure 
the ultimatum he had earlier laid down: the extension of the line of 
36° 30' through the territory acquired from Mexico with a definite 
recognition by Congress of the right of the people of the Southern 
States to carry their property in slaves into the territories south of 
that line and to have it protected there until the territories should 
be admitted as states, and an adjnission of the right of such states 
to come into the Union with or without slavery as they might pro- 
vide in their constitutions.^- 

Foote, on the other hand, while voting for the amendments pro- 
posed or supported by his colleague and even himself offering one 
looking to the fixing by California, after her admission into the Union, 
of the line of 35 degrees as her southern boundary, ^^ gave such hearty 

i« Speech of Foote, May 21, 1850, Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., i Sess., appx., 592. 

" Speech of Davis, May 28, 1850, Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., i Sess., 1083. 

^ In addition to the amendment proposed by Davis on May 15, he also proposed 
one, on June 19, to repeal all the laws of Mexico preexisting in the territory ac- 
quired by the United States from Mexico that obstructed the full enjoyment of 
any right of person or property of a citizen of the United States as recognized or 
guaranteed by the constitution or laws of the United States; and another, on July 
31, to limit the southern boundary of Utah to 36° 30.' All of these amendments 
were lost, although the first was supported by every Southern senator voting, except 
Benton, of Missouri, and Spruance, of Delaware. Ibid., 1134. 

^^ Ibid., appx. 1271. 



136 Mississippi Historical Society. 

support to the compromise that the National Era characterised him 
as "the most zealous, the most indefatigable, the most efficient ad- 
vocate of the Compromise bill."^* 

By the twenty-seventh of June, Davis was convinced that the com- 
promise bill could never be amended so as to receive his vote,^^ and 
from the moment he came to that conclusion, he tells us later, he 
determined to vote to kill the bill.^^ However, the debates on that 
measure and the efforts to amend it continued through another month 
and Davis did not get the opportunity to effect his purpose until 
the last day of July. 

On that day the opponents of the compromise rallied in a deter- 
mined effort to destroy the "Omnibus bill" by stripping it of its pro- 
visions. As this struggle involved not simply the amending of the 
bills in that measure so as to make them more satisfactory to the 
South, but their very existence, Foote, at length, parted company 
with his colleague in voting. In the divisions on striking out the 
provisions relating to New Mexico and Texas and on the indefinite 
postponement of the bill and also, in the first division for striking out 
the provisions relating to California, he voted in the negative and 
Davis in the affirmative. But when the adjustment scheme had been 
broken up by the striking out of the portions of the bills relating to 
New Mexico and Texas, Foote, true to his opposition to the admission 
of California save as a part of such a scheme, joined his Southern 
colleagues in votmg, on the second proposition for striking out that 
portion of the bill relating to CaUfornia. By the success of this latter 
measure the compromise bill was stripped of all its provisions except 
that for the organization of a territorial government for Utah.^' 

In this state the bill was passed the following day. But in recogni- 
tion of the fact that the compromise measure reported from the com- 
mittee of thirteen had been defeated, the title of the bill was changed 
to that of a bill to establish a territorial government for Utah.^^ 



" National Era, August 8, 1850. 

By this policy Foote, no doubt, hoped to win the approval of those of his con- 
stituents who were in favor of accepting the compromise and, at the same time, 
not to alienate others by failing to support any effort to modify the compromise 
in favor of the South. 

i^Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., i Sess., appx., 993. 

" Ihid., 1509. 

"Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., i Sess., 1490-1491; appx., 1470-1485. 

" Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., i Sess., 1504. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 137 

In this bill, the South did not secure in Utah all that Davis and the 
extreme pro-slavery group to which be belonged demanded with 
reference to the extension of slavery in a territory; but it did 
secure what Foote and many of the Southern Whigs desired with 
reference to non-intervention, through the striking out of all provi- 
sions in the bill concerning the power of the territorial legislature 
to pass laws concerning slavery and the leaving of all questions con- 
cerning such power to the courts for decision. In addition, it se- 
cured an amendment providing that when the territory or any part 
of it was admitted as a state, it should be received into the Union 
with or without slavery as its constitution might prescribe. ^^ 

Although the opponents of the compromise had succeeded in defeat- 
ing the scheme of adjustment proposed by the committee of thir- 
teen, circumstances were in favor of the party of compromise and it 
was very generally believed that the defeated bills would be carried 
as separate measures. On July 9, President Taylor, the unwavering 
opponent of the compromise-"^ had died and Millard Fillmore, the 
vice-president, had succeeded to the presidency. Though there was 
some doubt at first as to what course Fillmore would pursue in 
regard to the compromise,^ the personnel of the new cabinet, with 
Webster as Secretary of State, made it evident to all that he would 
support that measure, and the full power of the administration was 
soon felt in favor of the passage of the adjustment bills.^^ 

The situation in Texas, also, favored the passage of the compromise 
measures. In a message to Congress, on August 6, Filhnore pointed 
out the imminent danger of a conflict between the forces of Texas 
and those of the United States over jurisdiction over that part of 
New Mexico claimed by Texas and urged upon Congress the neces- 
sity of making provision for the settlement of the Texas boundary 
question .23 The influence of the president, aided by the fear that in 
a clash between Texas and the United States the slave states would 



19 United States Statutes at Large, EX., 453-454- , ^ 

20 An interview, just before his death, between Taylor and the representatives 
of the Southern Whigs in Congress gives evidence of the unchanged attitude of 
Taylor towards the compromise. J. F. H. Claiborne, Life and Corrsepondence of 

John A. Quitman, 11., S2-33. ^., .„ ,, - 

21 Letter of Horace Mann, July 12, 1850, Mann, Life of Horace Mann, I., 307. 

^ Letter of Horace Mann, August 23, 1850, Ibid., 316; Letter of Horace Mann. 
September 6, 1850, Ibid., 322. 

23 Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., i Sess., 1525-1526. 



138 Mississippi Historical Society. 

support Texas and the whole country would be involved in war,^ 
induced a majority of the Senate to favor a speedy adjustment of the 
boundary of Texas. Accordingly, three days after the president's 
message, in spite of the opposition of both the ultra Southern and the 
radical Northern senators, the Texas boundary bill passed the Senate 
by a vote of 30 to 20, Foote voting in the affirmative and Davis in 
the negative.^^ A precedent was thus established for the passage of 
the provisions of the compromise as separate measures. 

But the measure of compromise against which the sentiment of 
the South was most opposed and which Southern senators were 
most determined to defeat, was the bill for the admission of California. 
The struggle over that measure had been joined before the passage 
of the Texas bill, Douglas having moved, the day after the striking 
of the provisions relating to California from the compromise bill, the 
taking up of the separate bill for the admission of California introduced 
by him earlier in the session.^^ 

As the legislature of Mississippi had instructed the members of 
Congress from that state to resist the admission of California by all 
honorable and constitutional means and as he had always declared his 
opposition to the admission of California as a separate measure, Foote 
declared his intention of voting against this bill. In the struggle over 
the measure, he joined the other Southern senators in the effort to 
secure the division of CaUfornia^^ and, failing in that, he endeavored 
to postpone the passage of the California bill until the territorial 
questions were adjusted.^^ But in his speeches he made it quite evi- 
dent that he was ready to acquiesce if the bill were passed and was 
outspoken in his denunciation of those who counselled resistance to it.-' 

^ Letter of A. H. Stephens, June 29, 1850, National Era, July 11, 1850. 

^^ Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., i Sess., 1555. 

With the exception of Benton, of Missouri, and Underwood, of Kentucky, the 
Southern senators who voted against the bill belonged to the extreme pro-slavery 
group to which Jefferson Davis belonged and which had so consistently opposed 
the compromise. They were Atchison of Missouri, Barnwell and Butler of South 
Carolina, Davis of Mississippi, Hunter and Mason of Virginia, Morton and Yulee 
of Florida. Soule of Louisiana, and Tumey of Tennessee. 

''^ Ibid., 1513. 

^'' Ibid., appx., 1504. 

He proposed making an amendment making the line 35' 30° the southern boun- 
dary of California, which he afterwards modified, at the request of Davis, by sub- 
mitting 36° 30' for 35° 30'; and supported other amendments, to the same effect, 
proposed by his Southern colleagues. 

^^ Ibid., appx., 1504. 

-' Speech of Foote, August 12, 1850, Ibid., appx., 1521. 

"Thank God I am no secessionist," Foote exclaimed, in a speech very much 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 139 

Davis, however, as his whole course had shown, was utterly opposed 
to the admission of California with the boundaries it had prescribed 
for itself; therefore, he was not content with the measures of opposi- 
tion that satisfied his colleague. But, for the purpose of defeating 
the California bill, he entered into a written agreement with nine of 
his Southern colleagues in which they declared that they would avail 
themselves of any and every measure on which a majority of those 
signing the paper might determine to prevent the admission of Cali- 
fornia as a state, imless her southern boundary should be reduced 
to 36° 30'; and that, if California should be admitted with the 
boundaries prescribed, then such admission should be allowed only 
after the people of California should have assented thereto. ^"^ 

quoted afterwards by the " submissionists" in Mississippi, "no disunionist, and 
thank God that in one sense I am a submissionist. I am, and shall be, I trust, 
willing to submit to any constitutional enactment adopted by Congress, that does 
not amount to gross oppression. And I furthermore say, that, in my opinion, it 
will not only not be disgraceful to the South to submit to this enactment, but it will 
be particularly disgraceful, unpatriotic, and unpardonable in any part of the South 
to utter language of resistance to any such law. I regret very much that Cali- 
fornia is to come in with these unrestricted boundaries, but I have the consolation 
to know that it was not through any fault of mine that they were not restricted. 
I shall vote against the admission of California, according to my instructions, as 
I always intended to do if presented as a separate and distinct measure; but if 
California be admitted, I shall never counsel resistance, and I shall be prepared to 
rebuke resistance, to denounce secessionists, and to make every kind of opposition 
to those men who shall dare to raise their arms against the Government for the 
purpose of counteracting laws which they admit themselves to be constitutional." 

3" List of Manuscripts, Wisconsin Historical Society, 146. 

This manuscript in the Wisconsin Historical Society reads as follows: "John 
G. Pankhurst, Coldwater: Following is an exact copy of a paper in my possession. 
It was found at Winchester, Tenn., by some of my scouts and turned into me, as 
provost-marshall of the Fourteenth Army Corps, August 6, 1863. It carries the 
autograph signatures of ten of the most prominent Southern Statesmen in 1850: 

"We will avail ourselves of any and every means which a majority of those 
signing this paper may determine to prevent the admission of California as a state, 
unless her southern boimdary be reduced to 36° 30' and if California be admitted 
with the boundaries prescribed, then such admission be allowed only after the 
People of California shall have assented thereto .... this admission may 
be allowed if necessary, on proclamation of the Presdt. 

August 2, 1850. ?-^-J^*^'^^ 

A. P. Butler 

D. R. Atchison 

D. L. YULEE 

Pierre Soul£ 
Jeffn: DAV^s 
Jere: Clemens 
John Mason 
Jackson Morton 
R. W. Barnwell 



14© Mississippi Historical Society. 

At a meeting of the senators entering into this agreement to deter- 
mine what means they should use to carry out their purpose, Davis 
supported a motion of Soule, that they resist by all parHamentary 
means the passage of the California bill; but as the vote stood five 
to five, the motion was lost.^^ From subsequent proceedings in the 
Senate, it is evident that a majority of those signing the agreement 
decided in favor of resisting the bill only by debate and Davis, as he 
declared, was forced, for want of power to give up all other opposi- 
tion to the bill.32 

But before the passage of the California bill, Davis made a most 
effective use of the only means of opposition left him in a solemn ap- 
peal to the members of the Senate against the measure. He warned 
them that they were about to destroy permanently the balance of 
power between the sections of the Union; and that, too, when sectional 
spirit was rife over the land and when those who were to have the 
control in both houses of Congress and also over the executive power 
had shown, by unmistakable indications, a disposition to disregard 
the constitution, which made all equal in rights, privileges, and immu- 
nities. When that barrier for the protection of the minority was 
about to be obliterated, he felt that they had reached the point at 
which the bonds that had held the government together were to be 
broken by a ruthless majority, and that the next step might lead to 
the point at which aggression would assume such a form as would 
require the minority to decide whether they would sink below the 
condition to which they were born, or maintain it by forcible resist- 
ance. 

Such were the momentous consequences that Davis foresaw as 
possibly flowing from the act admitting CaUfornia; nor were his fore- 
bodings, in any degree, reduced by the spirit in which the act was 
done. In the temper manifested, he felt forewarned of the fate of 

3iReverse of the document in the List of Manuscripts, Wisconsin Historical 
Society, 146. "August. Mr. Soula moved that we resist by all Pariiamentary 
means the Passage of the bill and the vote stood as follows, for the motion was 
Messrs. Davis, Toumey, Soul6, Morton, Yulee — 5. Against it was Barnwell, But- 
ler, Mason, Hunter, Atchison — 5. Lost by a tie vote." 

It will be seen that the name of Clemens, of Alabama, does nor appear in this 
vote, but that of Hunter, of Virginia, does. 

'^On August 12, Davis declared in the Senate: "I was prepared to go to any 

possible limit in opposition to this measure It is not, therefore, for 

want of will, but for the want of power, that I have not offered further opposition 
than I have. Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., i Sess., appx. 1533. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hear on. 141 

the South when it should become permanently a minority in both 
houses of Congress. In that spirit of aggression and reckless disre- 
gard of the rights of the minority, he believed they might see, like 
the handwriting on the wall, the downfall of the Confederacy. 

Controlled by such opinions, Davis declared, he had required 
nothing to prompt him to the opposition that he had made to the Cali- 
fornia bill. But if he had, it was at hand, he asserted, in the expres- 
sions of popular will by primary meetings and legislative action. The 
legislature of his state had instructed him to resist the bill for the 
admission of California, under the circumstances of the case, by all 
proper and honorable means; the same legislature had made an appro- 
priation of money to enable the governor to ofifer proper resistance 
to the Wilmot proviso, if it should be passed by Congress and approved 
by the president; and in the California bill, as it was proposed, he saw 
nothing in any essential degree differing from the Wilmot proviso. 
Davis concluded: 

Then, Senators, coimtrymen, brethren, by these, and by other appellations, 
if there be others more endearing and impressive than these, I call upon you to 
pause in the course which, pressed by an intemperate zeal, you are pursuing, and 
warn you, lest blinded by the lust for sectional dominion, you plunge into an abyss 
in which will lie buried forever the glorious memories of the past, the equally glo- 
rious hopes of the future, and the immeasurable happiness of our cornmon country. 
It is not as one who threatens, nor as one who prepares for collision with his enemies 
but as one who has a right to invoke your fraternal feeling, and to guard you against 
an error which will equally bear on us both; as one who has shared your hopes and 
your happiness, and is about to share your misfortimes, if misfortunes shall befall 
us; it is as an American citizen that I speak to an American Senate — it is in this 
character that I have ventured to warn you; it is with this feeling that I make 
my last solemn appeal .^^ 

But, notwithstanding the appeal of Davis, the Senate passed the 
California bill, August 13, by a vote of 34 to 18, Davis and Foote 
both voting in the negative.^ 

Davis and the others of the group of Southern senators that had 
agreed on united action against the admission of California made a 
final efifort to give emphasis to their opposition to the California 
biU. On the day following its passage, Hunter, of Virginia, presented 
to the Senate a protest signed by himself and all the senators, except 

33 Speech of Davis, August 13, 1850, Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., i Sess., appx., 1534- 

^*Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., i Sess., iS73- 

All the senators from the South who were present voted m the negative, except 
Bell, of Tennessee, Underwood, of Kentucky, Benton, of Missouri, Spruance, of 
Delaware and Houston, of Texas. Clay was absent. 



142 Mississippi Historical Societ}'. 

Clemens, of Alabama, who had entered into the agreement to oppose 
the bill, and requested that it might be received and spread upon 
the journal of the Senate. The object of the senators, as stated in 
the protest, was to leave in the most solemn and enduring form a 
memorial of the opposition that they had made to the bill admitting 
CaUfornia as a state and of the reasons by which they had been gov- 
erned. But, no doubt, their real purpose was, by this impressive 
and convenient method, to defend their course in regard to the bill 
before their own constituents and to influence public sentiment in 
the South to refuse to acquiesce in that measure. 

To carry out the purpose of their protest, the Southern senators 
severely arraigned the California bill in giving their reasons for ob- 
jecting to it. They declared that they dissented from the bill, first, 
because validity was imparted by it to the unauthorized action of a 
portion of the inhabitants of California by which an odious discrimin- 
ation was made against the property of the fifteen slaveholding 
states of the Union; second, because, should the bill become a law. 
Congress must sanction and adopt a system of measures manifestly 
contrived without the authority of precedent, of law, or of the consti- 
tution, for the purpose of defeating the right of the slaveholding 
states to a common and equal enjoyment of the territory of the Union; 
third, because to vote for a bill passed under such circumstances 
would be to agree to a principle that destroyed the equal rights of 
their constituents, the equality of their states in the confederacy, the 
equal dignity of those whom they represented as men and as citizens 
in the eye of the law, and their equal title to the protection of the 
government and the constitution, and that might exclude forever, 
as it did then, the states that they represented from all enjoyment 
of the common territory of the Union; fourth, because all the prop- 
ositions had been rejected, that had been made to obtain either a 
recognition of the rights of the slaveholding states to a common en- 
joyment of all the territory of the United States, or a fair division of 
that territory between the slaveholding and the non-slaveholding 
states of the Union; and fifth, because, in sanctioning measures so 
contrary to former precedent, to obvious policy, to the spirit and 
content of the constitution of the United States, for the purpose of 
excluding the slaveholding states from the territory to be erected 
into a state, the government in effect declared that the exclusion of 



Mississippi and the Compromise ot 1850 — Hearon. 143 

slavery from the territory of the United States was an object so high 
and important as to justify a disregard not only of all the principles 
of sound policy, but also of the constitution itself. Against this 
conclusion, the senators declared, they must then and forever pro- 
test, as it was destructive to the safety and liberties of those whose 
rights had been committed to their care, fatal to the peace and equality 
of the states that they represented, and must lead, if persisted in, 
to the dissolution of that confederacy in which the slaveholding 
states had never sought more than equality, and in which they would 
not be content to remain with less.^^ 

Foote, very naturally, opposed the protest since he feared it would 
tend to stimulate the South to resist the compromise measures and 
his political fortunes were bound up in the acquiescence of his state 
in those measures, to which he was thoroughly committed. There- 
fore, he joined the majority in the Senate in refusing to receive the 
protest.^^ 

With the protest against the California bill, the struggle of Davis 
and his extreme pro-slavery colleagues against the passage of the 
compromise bills practically ended. In the divisions on the other 
three measures, Davis acted in accordance with his course from the 
beginning. He did not vote on the bill to establish a territorial 
government in New Mexico ,^^ and voted against the abolition of 
slavery in the District of Columbia^^ and in favor of the fugitive 
slave law.'^ In the latter measure, however, he declared, he felt 
no great interest, because he had no hope that it would ever be exe- 
cuted to any beneficial extent. But if the border states, the ones 
most interested in the question, hoped to derive any benefit from it 
he was willing, within the limits of his opinion as to what Congress 



'5 Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., i Sess., 1578, August 14, 1850. 

^^ Ibid., 1579. 

^' Ibid., 1589, August 15, 1850. 

The vote on this bill was 27 to 10; the negative votes were all cast by senators 
from the North. 

2* Ibid., 1830, September 16, 1850. 

The vote on this bill was 33 to 19; the nays were 12 Southern Democrats and 7 
Southern Whigs. Benton and Houston and 3 Southern Whigs, Clay, Underwood, 
and Spruance, voted in the affirmative. 

5' Ibid., 1647, August 23, 1850. 

The vote on the engrossmg and third reading of this bill was 27 to 12. The nays 
were 8 Northern Whigs, 3 Northern Democrats, and Chase. There were fifteen 
senators from the free states who did not vote. 



144 Mississippi Historical Society. 

might do and what the constitution imposed, to allow them to frame 
the law as they thought best.^° 

Foote, on the bill to organize a territorial government for New 
Mexico, paired with an opponent of the measure, voted in the affirma- 
tive on the fugitive slave bill, and did not vote on the bill for the 
abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, though he was present 
just before the division.^^ 

During the long period of the struggle in the Senate over the com- 
promise, the representatives from Mississippi in the House had not 
wavered in their support of the ultimatum of Davis and their oppo- 
sition to the measures proposed by the committee of thirteen,^^ and 
had rendered effective service in the successful efforts of the Southern 
representatives to prevent any action by the House, unfavorable to 
the South, on the questions at issue between the sections. 

Finally when it grew evident that the compromise measures would 
be passed by the Senate as separate bills, they joined a movement 
in the House for uniting the Southern members of that body to de- 
feat those measures.'*' For this purpose, a caucus of the representa- 
tives from the South was held on August 8, at which a committee of 
fifteen, one from each slave state, was appointed to report proper 
measures for the action of the South respecting the slavery and terri- 
torial question.** On the eleventh, Toombs, the chairman of the 
committee, reported to a meeting of the Southern members of the 
House a series of resolutions, which were adopted by that body. In 
these resolutions, the Southern representatives took their stand upon 
the position that had been taken by Jefferson Davis and confirmed 
by the Nashville convention. They declared in favor of non-inter- 



*^Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., i Sess., appx., 1588. 

*i Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., i Sess., 1830. 

*^ Speeches of Thompson, June 4, 1850, Ibid., 11 23, and June 5, 1850, Ibid., 
appx., 660; Speech of McWillie, July 23, 1850, Cong. Globe, i Cong., i Sess., 1470. 
Speech of Browne, June 13, 1850, Ibid., 1197; Letter of Featherston, July 12, 1850; 
Mississippi Free Trader, August 7, 1850. 

^^ This movement, called by the New York Tribune a conspiracy, was doubtless 
designed as a counterpart of the one in the Senate to defeat the passage of the 
California biU. 

** National Era, August 15, 1850. 

This committee consisted of seven Whigs and eight Democrats and was made up 
as foUows: Toombs, Burt, Hilliard, Thompson, of Mississippi, CabeU, Howard, 
Johnson, of Arkansas, Morse, Green, Seddon, Clingman, Thomas, McLean, Hous- 
ton, and Bowie. 



liJ 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Eearon. 145 

vention with slavery in the territories; but asserted that, in the event 
of the non-slaveholding states' objecting to that policy, they would 
insist upon a division of the coimtry on the line of 36° 30', with a 
distinct recognition and protection of property in slaves. In addition, 
they agreed that they would not vote for the admission of California, 
unless the southern boundary should be restricted to the parallel 36° 
30' north latitude; that they would not agree to any boimdary between 
Texas and New Mexico that proposed to cede to New Mexico any 
portion of territory south of the parallel of 36° 30' north latitude and 
west of the Rio Grande, prior to the adjustment of the territorial 
question; and that they would resist "by all usual legislative and 
constitutional means the admission of the State of California and the 
adjustment of the Texas boundary, until a settlement of the terri- 
torial questions."*^ 

These resolutions, however, were not assented to by a num^ber 
sufficient to secure the success of the movement. As the Southern 
Whigs, for the most part, had been won over to the support of the 
compromise and many of the Democrats were unwilling to resort 
to measures of obstruction to defeat it, only about forty of the South- 
ern representatives were present at this meeting and of these not all 
approved the proceedings.*^ Therefore, like Davis, the members of 
the House from Mississippi were forced, against their wishes, to aban- 
don the plan of defeating the compromise by "parliamentary means." 

All that was left for the representatives from Mississippi was to 
record their opposition to the compromise in their votes on the pas- 
sage of the measures. McWillie and Thompson voted in favor of the 
passage of only the fugitive slave bill and the Utah bill ;*7 while Brown 
and Featherston voted on the negative in every measure except the 
fugitive slave bill. 

« Quoted from the Southern Press in the National Era, August 15, 1850. _ 

The meaning of the last resolution was differently interpreted. No doubt it 
was intentionally left vague. 

« A Washington correspondent of the iVew York Tribune stated on August 11, 
that the conspiracy was assented to by forty Southern members of the House, the 
number requisite to defeat legislation in that body. New York Setni-weekly Trib- 
une, August 14, 1850. But a few days later a special message from Washington 
to the Tribune declared that the claim of the Southern Press as to the unanimity 
of the caucus had been exploded; that it had turned out that only forty-two were 
present at the meeting and only thirty sanctioned the proceedings; and that there 
was a card in the Intelligencer from Houston, of Delaware, dissenting from the 
resolutions and saying that he had been appointed on the committee without his 
consent. New York Semi-weekly Tribune, August 17, 1850. 



146 Mississippi Historical Society. 

But in spite of the opposition of the representatives from Missis- 
sippi, all the compromise measures were passed by the House, mainly, 
as in the Senate, by the support of the Southern Whigs and the 
Northern Democrats. As it was certain they would receive the signa- 
ture of the president, the great question, immediately was what atti- 
tude the states would assume toward those measures. 

That subject had been much discussed in the Senate in the debates 
on the compromise. As Foote had differed in his attitude toward 
the compromise from his colleague and the members of the House 
from Mississippi, he had especially endeavored to demonstrate that 
pubUc sentiment in Mississippi was in favor of the compromise and 
approved his course in regard to it.*^ Smce Davis coidd not let his 
assertions for that purpose pass unchallenged, there had been several 
discussions between the two on that subject.^^ 

In the last, just before the passage of the last of the compromise 
measures, Foote declared that, in his opinion nine-tenths of the en- 
lightened freemen of the state of Mississippi were now, and had been 
all along, cordially in favor of the much abused plan of adjustment, 
and he predicted that they would deUberately and formally sanction 
it and avow their concurrence in all that he had done and said as one 
of their senatorial representatives.^" Davis, on the other hand, de- 
clared that he was well assured that Foote would not find nine-tenths 
in any one county, still less in the state of Mississippi, favoring his 
course on the measures; and that he knew of no community in Missis- 
sippi, not a single town, where he believed Foote could find a majori- 
ty in favor of all the compromise measures.^^ 

In this discussion, both Foote and Davis expressed the intention 
of appealing to their constituents to decide between them. Accord- 
ingly as soon as Congress adjourned, they, together with the members 
of the House from Mississippi, returned to the state to take up with 
the people of Mississippi the question of their acceptance or rejec- 
tion of the compromise. Foote, alone of the Mississippi delegates 



" The New Mexico bill was united with the Texas boundaiy bill and was, there- 
fore, voted against by all the representatives from Mississippi. 

" Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., i Sess., appx., 990; Ibid., 1096; Ibid., 1390-1391. 
*» Ibid., 993-995; If>id., 1390-1391. 
^"Cowf. Globe, 31 Cong., i Sess., 1830. 
" Ibid., 1830. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 147 

in Congress, undertook the defense of that measure; while Davis 
and the members of the House actively engaged in the struggle, al- 
ready begun, against acquiescence in it. For an understanding of 
this struggle and the final decision of the state of Mississippi in re- 
gard to the compromise, it is necessary to follow the development 
of public sentiment in Mississippi in regard to the compromise, since 
the Nashville convention. 



CHAPTER VIII. 

THE BEGINNING OF THE STRUGGLE IN MISSISSIPPI OVER THE COM- 
PROMISE. 

After the Nashville convention as it became more and more likely that 
the Senate would pass the measures of compromise reported from 
the committee of thirteen, excitement grew in Mississippi and the line 
of cleavage between the supporters and the opponents of the com- 
promise became more definite. The entire Whig press came out in 
favor of the compromise; while the Democratic press, with a few ex- 
ceptions, opposed it. The members of the two great parties in Mis- 
sissippi followed, in the main, the same alignment, — the Democrats, 
for the most part, opposing the compromise measures, and the Whigs, 
with some very notable exceptions, favoring acquiescence in them. 

The Democratic papers, also, pointed out a line of cleavage other 
than the political, but one which was in fact the basis of that. This 
was the division between the commercial and the large planter classes, 
on the one hand, and the small planters and the farmers, on the other.^ 
The editor of the Mississippi Free Trader saw that the cause of the 
approval of the compromise by the former was in their more extended 
business connections and their greater financial dependence on the 
North, but was too bitterly hostile to the compromise to reason fairly 
concerning this fact. The banking and the other business interests 
of the state, he asserted, were in the hands of Northern men who coop- 

^ The Vicksburg Sentinel of July i6, 1850, said: 

"We have repeatedly stated that four-fifths of the people of Mississippi are op- 
posed to the 'compromise' of Mr. Clay. Judging by the recent expositions of opinion 
we are inclined to believe that there is hardly one man in twenty in the interior of 
the State who is not opposed to it. In the cities and large towns, it is diflferent. 
There are in such congregations of human vapors various obstacles to an unbiased 
formation and expression of opinion; but in the South the towns and cities are 
insignificant. They form a very small part of the population, and their influence 
is proportionately small. The rural population of the South is composed of the 
genuine sovereigns. They control the cities, not the cities them." 

An assertion of Governor Quitman also points out this division. "With the 
exception of the merchants, the traders, the bankers, the millionaires, and their 
dependents, the people are with us," he writes to J. J. McRae, September 28, 1850. 
Claiborne, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, II, 46. 

148 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hear on. 149 

erated with and were in "cahoot" with all the wealthy planters 
and commission merchants whom money or cupidity could seduce 
into their service. As for the largest slaveholders, whom the Whig 
press pointed out as favoring the compromise, there was not one 
that he knew of who was not a Northern man, a foreigner, or a dyed- 
in-the-wool Federalist. These "largest slaveholders," he added, 
dealt mostly in New York, Philadelphia, Paris, or New Orleans, and 
spent considerable portions of the year out of the South, trading or 
traffickmg or making money negotiations with the North by the force 
of which they kept up opposition to the Southern defenses and 
drowned the true Southern feeling.^ 

In the struggle in Mississippi over the compromise before its passage 
by Congress, much of the contest was waged over the course of Foote, 
since he was the only member of Congress from Mississippi who sup- 
ported that measure. Before the Nashville convention, the oppo- 
nents of the compromise, through the Democratic press and public 
meetings, began to repudiate Foote because of his action in regard to 
the compromise and to call upon him to resign.' After that conven- 
tion they became insistent on Foote's either seeking to carry out the 
resolutions of that body or resigning.* They declared that he grossly 
misrepresented the feelings and opinions of a large majority of his 
constituents in advocating the report of the committee of thirteen 
and should in accordance both with honesty and with his previously 
expressed opinions on that subject resign.* The Canton Madisonian 
suggested that the dispute in the Senate between Davis and Foote 
as to which most correctly represented Southern sentiment on the 
compromise bill could be very easily determined, if the seats of both 

* Mississippi Free Trader, September 18, 1850. 

'Quotation from the Mississippian in the Mississippi Free Trader, June 22, 
1850. 

* Resolutions of a meeting in De Soto county, August 5, 1850, Ibid., September 
4, 1850. 

* Resolutions of a Public Meeting of the Democracy of Leake county, Yazoo 
Democrat, August 29, 1850; quotation from the Yazoo Democrat in the Mississippi 
Free Trader, June 19, 1850. 

The Mississippi Free Trader, of June 19, 1850, asserted: "We would respect- 
fully call Mr. Foote's attention to a convention which took place in the city of 
Jackson, wherein the gentleman addressing him stated, 'Your democracy, sir, is 
doubted:' the reply was, 'When I fail to discharge that duty and am informed of 
the fact by six democrats, I will resign.' If we mistake not, there are six to one 
voters of this state who would sign that call for his withdrawal from the Senate, 
sooner than sustain the proposed compromise." 



150 Mississippi Historical Society. 

gentlemen were vacated and an election held to fill them; and pro- 
phesied that one of them would be most triumphantly reelected and 
that the other would be sustained by none of his own party and by 
only a small portion of the Whigs.* 

But since there was no likelihood of Foote's compl3dng with the 
requests for his resignation, many opposed to the compromise con- 
fined themselves to censuring his course on that measure^ or commend- 
ing Davis and the representatives from Mississippi for their devotion 
and energy in seeking to maintain the rights of the South and ignoring 
the course of Foote.* 

In the meantime, the Whigs very naturally rallied to the defense 
of Foote, and through the press and resolutions of public meetings 
approved his course and thanked him for his "unwavering firmness, 
his untiring perseverance, his able and eminent services, and his 
patriotic efforts in the cause alike of the South and of the Union."^ 

The Mississippi Free Trader welcomed with satisfaction this adop- 
tion of Foote by the Whigs. It exclaimed: 

This parrotty quibbler, endless explainer and talker is getting into his true 

company at last — the party of the "Whig free-soldiers" Whenever 

the unprincipled desert the ranks of the Democracy, they are taken into the 
holy keeping of all-the-decency as jewels. We surrender to the Whig free-soilers 
Benton, Houston, Bob Walker, Gwin, and Foote. They will truly represent the 
principles of that party. Spoils! — Spoils! — Spoils!^" 

But the attitude of the people of Mississippi towards Foote is im- 
portant only as an evidence of their attitude toward the compromise, 
and this they did not hesitate to show in other ways than in censure 
or approval of the course of Foote. The favorite method of securing 
an expression of popular opinion was through public meetings in the 
different counties. At this time, such assemblies of those opposed to 
the compromise took the form of non-partisan meetings called to 
ratify the proceedings of the Nashville convention. The Democratic 

' Quoted from the Canton Madisonian in the Mississippi Free Trader, July 27, 
1850. 

^ Meeting of both political parties in Attala county, August 17, Ihid., September 
4, 1850; Public meeting in Adams coimty of those opposed^to the compromise, 
Septemlaer 9, 1850, Ibid., September 11, 1850. 

* Meeting in Copiah county, August 19, 1850, Ihid, September 4, 1850; Public 
meeting in Jasper county, July 15, 1850, Ibid., August 14, 1850. 

^ Rally for the Union, Natchez, September 23, Natchez Semi-weekly Courier, 
September 24, 1850. 

" Mississippi Free Trader, August 31, 1850. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 151 

press was very careful to call attention to the attendance of these 
meetings by members of both political parties and even Whig papers 
admitted the presence of Whigs in them, in censuring the course of 
such members of the party.^^ However, it is perfectly clear that the 
majority in each meeting was Democratic. 

Carrying out one object for which they were called, these meetings 
ratified and adopted the resolutions and address of the Nashville 
convention.^ But the opponents of the compromise in Mississippi, 
understanding clearly that the immediate purpose of the endeavor 
to unite the South on the Nashville platform was to defeat the com- 
promise measure in Congress, did not stop, in the meetings, with the 
ratification of the proceedings of the Nashville convention, but added 
thereto statements of opposition to the compromise. 

In some instances these expressions of opposition to the compromise 
were both concise and sweeping. The citizens of De Soto county 
contented themselves with declaring: "That the bill, as reported by 
the committee of thirteen, is in direct violation of Southern rights 



" Public Meeting in De Soto county, August 5, 1850. Mississippi Free Trader, 
September 4, 1850. The Hernando True Whig says: "z\mongst the actors in this 
meeting, we recognize prominent Whigs, for whom we entertain a high opinion 
and regret to differ with them." 

Public Meeting in Attala county, August 17, 1850, Ihid. The Mississippi 
Free Trader declares: "Among the officers of the occasion, the two political par- 
ties were pretty nearly equal." 

Public Meeting in Yalobusha coimty, August 17, 1S50, Ihid. The Free Trader 
says that this meeting "was composed of aU parties, and the imanimity, among 
at least four hundred Southerners, was truly remarkable." 

Public ]\Ieeting in Hinds county, held the iSrst week in September, Yazoo Demo- 
crat, October 3, 1850. According to the Free Trader, this was the largest meeting 
ever held in that county. Those taking part in it asserted in the preamble to the 
resolutions adopted : " We come into this meeting, not as Whigs, not as Democrats, 
but as Southern men. We know no party on the vital question of Southern rights, 
and we wiU permit no party or faction or leader of either to absolve us from our 
just allegiance to our State and the South. We unite here as a band of brothers 
at the common altar of our country. We are threatened with cormnon dangers 
and boimd to one common duty, and one destiny awaits us all. We are resolved 
to make a common cause in defense of the institutions, the rights, liberties and inde- 
pendence guaranteed to us by the constitution of our fathers." 

^Public Meeting in Jasper county, July 15, 1850, Mississippi Free Trader, 
August 14, 1850; Public Meeting in De Soto county, August 5, 1850, Ihid., Sep- 
tember 4, 1850; Public Meeting in Attala coimty, August 17, 1850, Ibid., Public 
Meeting in Yalobusha coimty, August 17, 1850, Ihid.; Public Meeting in Copiah 
county, August 19, 1850, Ibid.; Public Meeting in Kemper county, August 24,1850, 
Ibid., September 7, 1850; Public Meeting in Hinds county, held the first week in 
September, The Yazoo Democrat, October 3, 1850; Public Meeting in Adams county 
September 9, 1850, Mississippi Free Trader, September 11, 1850. 



152 Mississippi Historical Society. 

and all constitutional usages, and ought not to be submitted to."" 
But, for the most part, the opponents of the compromise went more 
into detail in objecting to that measure. 

Taking the position as to sovereignty and legislative power in the 
territories so generally accepted in the South by the followers of 
Calhoim, they declared that any act of the general government, 
whether of commission or of omission, by which the Southern people 
would be shut out from as free and full enjoyment of the territories 
as the Northern, would be a gross violation of the rights of the 
South. 

With regard to the admission of California, they varied somewhat 
in their expressions of opinion. All agreed that the admission of 
CaUfornia with the boundaries defined in its constitution would be 
inexpedient, improper, and unjust to the Southern states.^"* But 
some went farther and declared that such an act would be a violation 
of the constitution and equivalent to the passage of the Wilmot pro- 
viso,^^ and the citizens of Hinds county added that the South should 
never submit to it, for it would be, in the language of the Mississippi 
convention and of the legislature, "such a breach of the Federal 
compact as in that event will make it their duty as it is the right of 
the slaveholding states to take care of their own safety, and to treat 
the non-slaveholding states as enemies to the slaveholding states 
and their domestic institution."^^ 

In regard to other provisions in the compromise, the abolition of 
the slave trade in the District of Columbia was held to be an assump- 
tion of authority by Congress to legislate adverse to slavery^^ and 
declared to be inexpedient and insulting to the South.^^ But the 
Texas boundary bill aroused much greater opposition. The title of 
Texas to the boundaries fixed by her laws was upheld,^^ and the inter- 



im Public Meeting in De Soto county, August 5, 1850, Mississippi Free Trader, 
September 4, 1850. 

" Public Meeting in Copiah county. August 19, 1850, Ibid., September 4, 
1850; Public Meeting in Jasper county, July 15, 185c, Ibid., August 14, 1850. 

1^ Public Meeting in Adams county, September 9, 1850, Ibid., September 11, 
1850; Public Meeting in Hinds county, Yazoo Democrat, October 3, 1850. 

" Public Meeting in Hinds county, Yazoo Democrat, October 3, 1850. 

" Public Meeting in Adams county, September 9, 1850, Mississippi Free Trader, 
September 11, 1850. 

'* Public Meeting in Jasper county, July 15, 1850, Ibid., August 14, 1850. 

" Ibid. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 153 

est of Mississippi and the other Southern states in sustaining her 
claims, even to the extent of taking up arms in support of them, 
asserted.'" 

Although it is true, no doubt, that a majority of the people of Mis- 
sissippi approved of these expressions of opposition to the compromise; 
yet there was an ever increasing minority that believed that the 
compromise measures were the best that the South could secure and 
that it was unwise to oppose them. These raUied to the support of 
the compromise and sought to convince the citizens of the state of 
the wisdom of accepting it. The resolutions passed September 23, 
just after the last of the compromise measures became a law, by the 
"Rally for the Union" in Natchez, a stronghold of Whig influence in 
the state, may be taken as typical of the declarations of those in favor 
of the compromise. In accordance with the purpose of the meeting 
as stated in the call, those taking part declared their attachment to 
the Union, their approval of the compromise measures, and their 
opposition to the platform of the Nashville convention, and endorsed 
the course of Foote and others who supported the compromise,*'^ 

In these resolutions on the compromise, they asserted that they 
recognized in that measure the observance of principles maintained 
and relied on by the South for the protection of her interests; that it 
rejected and put to rest the odious Wilmot proviso, and left the terri- 
tories open equally to the immigration and enjoyment of citizens 
from all sections of the Union, with their property of every species 
guaranteed by the constitution; that it furnished the most stringent 
and ample remedy for the recovery of fugitive slaves; and that it 
recognized in the people of the territory, without regard to its locality, 
the right in organizing themselves into a state, to settle the question 
of slavery for themselves in their own organic law. Not being able 
to find anything to commend, however, in the measure admitting 
California, they contented themselves with acquiescing in it as a ques- 
tion subject solely to the discretion of Congress. 

In dissenting from the recommendations of the Nashville conven- 
tion, they declared that their right of immigration, with slave prop- 

20 Public Meeting in Adams county, September 9, 1850, Mississippi Pre Trader, 
September 11, 1850; Public Meeting in Hinds county, the Yazoo Democrat, October 
3, 1850. 

^ Rally for the Union, September 23, 1850, Natchez Semi-weekly Courier, Sep- 
tember 24, 1850. 



154 Mississippi Historical Society. 

erty, to the territories of the United States, did not depend upon 
Congressional permission, nor could it be wrested from them constitu- 
tionally by Congressional authority; but that the Nashville platform 
substantially surrendered to Congress the right of unlimited legisla- 
tion over slave property in the territories, and placed "it at the dis- 
cretion of the majority in that body — thereby cutting off all grounds 
for conciliation, harmony and adjustment, and presenting as the 
only alternative, Disunion, with all its horrors and calamities." 
They added, as an argument in favor of the compromise, that in that 
settlement, the claim by the North to such power of unlimited legisla- 
tion by Congress had been abandoned by both houses, not merely 
with regard to territory on both sides of the hne 36° 30' but also with 
regard to the territory that, at the time of the annexation of Texas, 
was placed within the reach of such prohibatory enactment. 

Finally they extended the thanks of the meeting not only to Foote, 
but also to Clay, Cass, Dickinson, Webster, and the other distinguished 
members of Congress, who, abandoning all party, sectional, and per- 
sonal considerations, had imited in patriotic endeavors to settle a 
most threatening and dangerous controversy, and thereby cement 
the more closely and permanently the bonds of the glorious Union.^ 

In this struggle in Mississippi to form pubHc opinion with refer- 
ence to the compromise and, if possible, influence Congress in regard 
to the passage of that measure, the supporters of the compro- 
mise freely charged the opponents with cherishing and seeking to 
propagate disunion sentiments and endeavored to fix on them the 
name "disunionists." The opponents of the compromise, however, 
insisted they were not disimionists. They declared that there 
were certain rights that the South could not give up even for the sake 

22 Rally for the Union, Natchez, September 23, 1850, Natchez Semi-weekly Cour- 
ier, September 24, 1850. The Mississippi Free Trader printed the resolutions of 
this meeting in its issue of September 25, and added as its comment on them: "Re- 
solved, that we consider the whole batch of the foregoing resolutions as the contempt- 
ible spawn of Southern submissionism, unworthy of citizens of the State of Missis- 
sippi; and which should be and doubtless will be repudiated by nineteen- twentieths 
of the people of the State." 

That these resolutions were regarded as an important expression of the views 
of the supporters of the compromise is shown by the fact that they were answered 
by no less a person than Jefferson Davis. In an open letter, dated November 10, 
and published in the Free Trader, November 30, 1850, Davis defended his course 
on the compromise and pointed out what he considered the fallacies in the reso- 
lutions. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Eearon. 155 

of preserving the Union and that they, in working to prevent the 
passage of the compromise and to secure these rights, were working 
to save the Union; and charged the supporters of the compromise 
with being the real disimionists, because they were contributing to 
the bringing about of conditions to which the South would find it 
impossible to submit. 

While many of the opponents of the compromise took the position 
that the South ought not to submit to the compromise measures if 
they were passed, they were very guarded in their suggestions as to 
what should be done. This was no doubt due to the difl&culty of 
formulating a plan of resistance that could not be charged with dis- 
union tendencies and the knowledge, on the part of the leaders, that 
the giving of grounds for such a charge would ahenate many who were 
unwilling to acccept the compromise, but who were not ready to go 
to the extent of endangering the Union to defeat it. 

But, on the passage of the compromise measures, the excitement 
became so intense that it was no longer possible to restrain the ex- 
pressions of disunion sentiments. While the roar of cannon gave 
expression to the joy of the " submissionists" of Natchez and other 
cities of the South and North over that event, the Mississippi Free 
Trader threw aside all hesitation and concealment and recommended 
state secession as a constitutional, peaceful, and safe remedy. It 
exclaimed : 

We see but two ways, secession or submission. Let our people determine. . . 
Let our Legislature at once recall our Senators and Representatives, and call a 
State Convention and let the issue be presented fairly to the people — Secession or 
Submission. Let us keep the peace amongst ourselves; argue the matter in each 
county; and then the voice of the people will decide.^^ 

Although the opponents of the compromise in Mississippi had been 
very cautious in expressing their views as to the course the Southern 
states should pursue if the compromise were adopted, they had not 
failed to give careful consideration to that question. John. A. Quit- 
man, as governor of the state and an earnest advocate of the poUcy 
of active resistance to the compromise, naturally became the center 
of the opposition to that measure and his correspondence and public 
papers reveal something of the desires and plans of those who favored 
resisting the compromise. 

23 Mississippi Free Trader, September 25, 1850. 



156 Mississippi Historical Society. 

A letter, dated September 19, from General Felix Huston to him 
shows that, at the time of the passage of the compromise, others 
than the editor of the Free Trader had come to the conclusion that 
secession or submission to that measure was the only alternative 
before the people of Mississippi; and, furthermore, clearly indicates 
that there must have been an understanding, among the leading 
men in Mississippi in favor of resisting the compromise, that the 
public expression, at that time, of an opinion in favor of secession 
would be unwise, Huston urged upon Quitman the policy of separate 
state secession and declared that they would be defeated if they 
called a general Southern convention. He wrote: 

Let Georgia or Mississippi take the lead and secede, and that brings the neces- 
sity of the general government using force — and gradually other states will join. 

If the Legislature is called together as no doubt you will do — the 

course I would suggest would be for them to pass decided resolutions and call a 
state convention — No time ought to be lost. . . . Now my dear Gen'l. is the 
time for decision and nerve and we must not be discouraged by opposition.^ 

But influence was being brought to bear on Quitman against sepa- 
rate state secession and in favor of united action by all the slaveholding 
states. On the same day that Huston addressed to Quitman his 
letter favoring separate secession. Senator Barnwell, of South Caro- 
lina, also wrote to Quitman outlining a course of cooperative action 
and urging it upon him. This letter is of great interest and impor- 
tance because it came from Washington, from one of that group of 
Southern senators that had united in opposing the admission of Cali- 
fornia and in protesting against the California bill after its passage, 
and because so many of its suggestions were accepted by Quitman. 

The opponents of the compromise in Washington, Barnwell wrote, 
were utterly prostrate and looked homeward for further opposition to 
to that measure. He turned to the reassembling of the Nashville 
convention as the first moment at which the South could unite and 
declared that that meeting should take place in Georgia, that its pro- 
ceedings should be able and firm, and that the resolutions and address 
should come from Mississippi or Georgia. But he warned Quitman 
that the delegates sent before by those states would not suit the occa- 
sion or draw the proper kind of papers, and expressed himself as "ex- 

** Letter of Huston to Quitman, Natchez, September 19, 1850, Claiborne Papers, 
State Archives, Jackson, Mississippi. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hear on. 157 

tremely anxious' ' that Mississippi should draw them. Then, doubt- 
less to influence the formulation of those documents, Barnwell stated 
his own views as to the issues the South should make up. He 
thought that the slaveholding states should hold a congress, to which 
should be submitted the question of seceding or demanding guar- 
antees; that, until the assembling of that congress, non-intercourse, 
political as well as commercial, might be recommended; and that 
some center of political opinion other than the federal government 
should be created for the slaveholding people. 

If the five states of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, 
and Mississippi should assemble in this congress, Barnwell believed 
that their objects would be accomplished, but he did not think that 
the friends of Southern rights in Georgia would be able to carry their 
convention for decisive measures. He deemed it inexpedient for 
South Carolina to move alone, but if any state would give assurance 
of sustaining her, he was for South Carolina's seceding and thus 
forcing a congress. However, he concluded they would first counsel 
together in Nashville.^^ 

Letters from other public men of South Carolina show the reliance 
of the leaders of that state on the cooperation of Mississippi with 
South Carolina in resisting the compromise. Governor Seabrook 
wrote to Quitman to advise him that Georgia would shortly be sum- 
moned by her executive to meet in convention and to ask whether 
Mississippi was prepared to assemble her legislature, or adopt any 
other scheme to second that commonwealth in her noble effort to 
preserve unimpaired the Union of '87, and, also, to assure Quitman 
that South Carolina, though moving cautiously for satisfactory rea- 
sons, was prepared to support any movement for resistance made by 
two other states. ^^ 

Influenced by these and hundreds of other letters he received from 
all portions of Mississippi and from other states," and by an un- 
wavering conviction that it was both the right and the duty of the 
slaveholdhig states to refuse to acquiesce in the compromise, Quit- 

** Letter from R. W. Barnwell to Quitman, Washington, September 19, 1850, 
Claiborne Papers, State Archives, Jackson, Mississippi. . 

« Letter of Governor Seabrook, of South Carolina, to Governor Quitman, 
September 20, 1850, Claiborne, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, II, 
36. 

" Ihid., 35. 



158 Mississippi Historical Society. 

man issued a proclamation calling the legislature of Mississippi to 
meet in special session, November 18, 1850.^^ 

In the proclamation, Governor Quitman based his convening the 
legislature on the grounds that the people of Mississippi had repeat- 
edly claimed and asserted their equality of right with the other states 
of the Union to the free use and enjoyment of the territory belonging 
to the United States, and had frequently declared their determination, 
at all hazards, to maintain those rights; and that, by the recent acts 
of Congress, they, in common with the citizens of all the slavehold- 
ing states had been virtually excluded from their just rights in the 
greater portion, if not all, of the territories acquired from Mexico; 
and, in addition, that the aboUtion, by Congress, of the slave trade 
in the District of Columbia, and other acts of the federal government, 
done and threatened, left no reasonable hope that the aggressions 
upon the rights of the people of the slaveholding states would cease 
imtil, by direct or indirect means, their domestic institutions were 
overthrown. 

Therefore, Governor Quitman asserted, he convened the legisla- 
ture: 

That the proper authorities of the state may be enabled to take into consideration 
the alarming state of our public affairs, and, if possible, avert the evils which impend 
over us, that the state may be placed in an attitude to assert her sovereignty, and 
that the means may be provided to meet any and every emergency which may 
happen.^* 

This proclamation, setting in motion the machinery provided by 
the legislature for resisting acts of Congress designated by it as vio- 
lations of the constitution and dangerous to the rights of the South, 
precipitated the great struggle in Mississippi over the course the 
state should pursue in regard to the compromise. 

2s Claiborne, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, II, 43. 
^' Ibid., 43- 



CHAPTER DC. 

THE CALLING OF THE CONVENTION OF 1851. 

The struggle in Mississippi over the policy of the state toward 
the compromise of 1850, which had been precipitated by the 
proclamation of Governor Quitman convening the legislature in 
special session, first centered around the action of that body when 
it should meet; and the object of the first campaign in that struggle 
was to influence the legislature in regard to the caUing of a conven- 
tion of the people of the state "for the assertion and defense of their 
sovereign and constitutional rights." 

The general position of the Democratic and the Whig parties in Mis- 
sissippi in the beginning of this campaign is indicated by the attitude 
of the press of the two parties toward the governor's proclamation. 
The Democratic press, with a few exceptions,^ approved the proc- 
lamation; while the Whig papers condemned the assembling of the 
legislature, denied the truth of the assertions made by the governor 
justifying that act, and declared that the time had not yet arrived 
when the South "should follow Robert Barnwell Rhett or John An- 
thony Quitman in their circumgyrations in the tempest of high- 
pressure Southern partisanship."^ 

The members of Congress from Mississippi played an important 
part in this contest. Davis and the members of the House, having 
consistently opposed the compromise to the very end, by every means 
in their power, threw themselves into the campaign in defense of 
their course and also in support of the adoption by the state of a 
poUcy of resistance to that measure. Foote, on the other hand, 



iThe Columbus Democrat condemned Quitman's proclamation and declared 
that the governor had made a great blvmder. The Grenada (Yalobusha county) 
RepuhlicaTi stated that it had not heard of a single person's approvmg the procla- 
mation and declared that the extra session of the legislature boded no good to Uie 
people or to the Union, which they loved and cherished. Natchez Semt-weekly 

Courier, October 15, 1850. , , „ . 1.1 n • r\ *^k^, 

2 Quotation from the Yazoo Whig in the Natchez Semi-weekly Courier, October 

15, 1850. 



159 



i6o Mississippi Historical Society. 

had been one of the most active and persistent supporters of the com- 
promise and had declared in the Senate that it would be preemi- 
nently disgraceful and unpardonable on the part of the South to 
utter the language of resistance to such a law and that he should never 
coimsel resistance, but that he should be prepared to resist the re- 
sisters and to denounce the secessionists. Therefore, on his return 
to Mississippi, he proceeded to make an energetic fight against the 
adoption by the state of a policy of resistance to the measure. 

He identified himself with the party in favor of submission to the 
compromise, which had already begun to form in Mississippi; and, 
by his remarkable gifts as an eloquent and plausible campaign speaker 
and an aggressive and resourceful party leader, soon began to arouse 
and organize, in the state, a really effective opposition to the party 
of resistance. A less hardy and self confident man than Foote 
would have been dismayed by the overwhelming odds confronting 
him in the beginning of this struggle; for the other members of Con- 
gress from Mississippi, the governor of the state, a majority of the 
legislature, and, finally, a majority of the party that had sent him 
to the Senate and that dominated the state so completely, all were 
arrayed against him. But this served only to call forth greater au- 
dacity and energy from Foote; and fighting for the acquiescence 
of Mississippi in the compromise, the success of the party with which 
he had identified himself in state and national affairs, and for his 
own political existence, he began the extraordinary campaign that 
was to turn what, at first, promised to be an overwhelming defeat 
into a great victory. 

Foote wished to open, formally, his campaign in Mississippi by a 
joint debate with Quitman in the state capital, on the seventeenth 
of October. Quitman, although he accepted Foote's challenge, did 
not appear,^ but Foote was there prepared to give the "key note" 
to his party for the contest, and to propose a definite measure on which 
it could unite. He defended the compromise and charged all those 
who were opposed to submitting to it with seeking the dissolu- 
tion of the Union as their first object;^ and as the first movement 
in the campaign, he announced his determination to go over the state 

' Foote says that Quitman was suddenly taken sick, Foote, Casket of Reminis- 
cences, 353. 

* The Mississippian, October 25, 1850. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 161 

and urge those who were opposed to resistance to assemble in Jack- 
son on the day that the legislature had been summoned to meet.^ 

Meantime, the leaders of those opposed to submission to the com- 
promise were forming plans to carry out their purpose and endeavor- 
ing to influence public opinion in favor of resistance to that measure. 
Although Quitman in the proclamation convening the legislature 
had not indicated any measures that he thought the legislature 
ought to adopt in carrying out the purpose for which it was called, 
letters from him to John J. McRae and to Governor Seabrook, of 
South CaroHna, shortly afterwards, show that he was carefully con- 
sidering what he should recommend to that body when it came to- 
gether. In addition, the letters and speeches of other public men, 
the resolutions of public meetings, and the utterances of the press 
indicate that, before the assembling of the legislature, a definite 
poHcy was being formed and accepted by those in Mississippi in favor 
of resistance to the compromise. 

In a letter to McRae, September 28, 1850, Quitman declared that 
it was highly important for the Southern party, both in the agitation 
before the people and in the action of the legislature, to move in con- 
cert; otherwise it would fail, and its failure would plunge the coimtry 
into irretrievable ruin. For the purpose of securing this unity of 
action, he communicated to McRae a program for the future move- 
ments of the party, which he asserted was still undigested and on 
which he wished the full benefit of the views of all the true men of 
the state, especially of those in position. 

Before outlming his program, Quitman, in stating the convictions 
on which it was based, definitely declared his belief in secession as 
the only effectual remedy before the South. He asserted: 

First, then, I believe there is no effectual remedy for the evils before us but se- 
cession. If any other measure short of it can be shown to promise a radical cure 
of the evils I am willing to adopt it.^ 



^Foote asserts that in carrying out this determination he made some forty 
public addresses. Foote, Casket of Reminiscences, 353. . • • u 

• There is also additional evidence that Quitman had secession m view m the 
plans he was forming at this time. In his letter to Governor Seabrook, of bouth 
Carolina, of September 29, 1850, he writes: "Having no hope of an effectual rem- 
edy for existing and prospective evils but in separation from the Northern btates, 
my views of state action will look to secession." Claiborne, Life and Correspond- 
ence of John A. Quitman, II, 37. 



i62 Mississippi Historical Society. 

His program he set forth to McRae as follows: 

My idea is that the Legislature should call a convention of delegates elected by 
the people, fully empowered to take into consideration our federal relations, and 
to change or annul iJiem, to adapt our organic law to such new relations as they 
might establish, to provide for making compacts with the other states, etc., 
etc., and that in the meanwhile an effective military system be established, and 
patrol duties most rigidly enforced. My message should glance at all these meas- 
ures.^ 

But since the object of Quitman in writing to McRae was not simply 
to communicate his own views, but also to devise a program that 
would receive the support of "the Southern party," he asked McRae 
for suggestions and advice on all the subjects included in his program 
and informed him that he should ask, in like manner, the free opinion 
of Davis, Thompson, Brown, Barton,^ Stewart,^ and other friends. 
He also suggested that, for the purpose of securing united action, 
a committee should be appointed to meet and frame a plan of opera- 
tions based on the suggestions that he should receive as, otherwise, 
the framing of such a plan must be intrusted to his discretion. What- 
ever plan should be thus determined on, he urged, should be fully 
sustained by every Southern man, and he pledged to it his time, 
his labor, his fortune, and his hfe. He declared: 

In the meantime, every patriot should leave no point untouched where his in- 
fluence can be exerted. Cheer on the faithful, strengthen the weak, disarm the 
submissionists with instructions; send the fiery cross through the land, and summon 
every gallant son of Mississippi to the rescue. Hold meetings and challenge the 
submissionists to discussion, and agitate the question everywhere. 

The letter to McRae also reveals that Quitman and his party were 
keeping in close touch with the other movements in the South in 
favor of resistance. He writes: 

My proposed movement is not antagonistical, but in harmony with the Nash- 
ville Convention. I have not much confidence in its efiicacy beyond presenting 



^ Letter from Governor Quitman to Hon. J. J. McRae, Jackson, September 28, 
1850, Claiborne, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quilman, II, 44-45. 

In his letter to Governor Seabrook of September 29, Quitman gives this same 
program of the measures that he intended to recommend to the legislature. Ibid., 
37. 

* Roger Barton was a Democrat and a member of the legislature from Marshall 
county. 

* T. Jones Stewart was a Whig, a state senator from Wilkinson coimty, a member 
of the first NashviUe convention, and an opponent of the compromise, and headed 
the list of 318 citizens of Wilkinson county who signed a letter to Davis approving 
his course on the compromise. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 163 

a plan of joint action for the states We, therefore, call into exercise the state 
powers to receive it. I do not believe Judge Sharkey will give notice of its reas- 
sembling; he is opposed to it. If that convention shall meet, our Legislature will 
meet on the following week: we can then communicate daily by telegraph. At 
the same time the Georgia Convention will be in session; the Legislature of South 
Carolina also, and probably Alabama. 

We will take care to have confidential reporters at each point.i" 

While plans of action were thus being formed by the leaders, the 
agitation in favor of resisting the compromise even to the extent 
of secession, urged by Governor Quitman, was vigorously carried on. 
Through the press and public meetings the constitutional right of 
secession was proclaimed" and political theories in support of that 
right were advocated. It was asserted: 

That the State of Mississippi is a sovereignty, that her people owe obedience to 
the general government, but that they owe allegiance to her, and that this duty of 
allegiance to their state is paramount to any and all claims of obedience from any 
quarter; that the condition of the Union is but a compact and covenant between 
sovereign states, that the powers that made it can unmake it when they please, 
have the right to withdraw from it peaceably at any time without opposition or 
complaint, and in the language of Jefferson to judge of all infractions of the com- 
pact and of the mode and measure of redress.^ 

It was also asserted that provisions of the compromise were in- 
fractions of the constitution; that it was the duty and the right of the 
slaveholding states to resist those infractions by all the means with 
which they would resist any other palpable violations of the consti- 
tution;^^ and that regard for their political equality and independence, 
the preservation of their social relations and the peace and security 
of their homes, required that the Southern states should call to their 

1" Letter of Governor Quitman to McRae, September 28, 1850, Claiborne, Life 
and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, II, 45. 

" A meetmg of the citizens of Claiborne county in favor of Southern nghts re- 
solved, "That the right of peaceable secession is an inherent and reserved right, 
and affords no cause for war." Mississippi Free Trader, November 6, 1850. 

The Mississippi Free Trader, October 9, 1850, declared: "If any of the Southern 
States secede, we do not believe that the mere fact of peaceful secession is, of it- 
self, a violation of the constitutional compact, or just cause of war. Some of the 
States positively reserved the right to withdraw from the Union, and the very 
nature of the Confederate government implies that the members who formed the 
confederacy may dissolve it." . r\ t 

^ Southern Rights Meeting in Yazoo, October 7, 1850, Yazoo Democrat, Octo- 
ber 10, 1850. , .. J ^u 

The Seashore Sentinel also asserted: "No greater truth was ever uttered than 
that the allegiance of a citizen is due to the State which gives him protection, and 
to the Union through the State." Mississippi Free Trader, October 12, 1850. 

^ Southern Rights Meeting in Yazoo, October 7, 1850, Yazoo Democrat, Octo- 
ber 10, 1850. 



164 Mississippi Historical Society. 

aid their sovereignty and resume the powers delegated to the gen- 
eral government." 

Opponents of the compromise also urged secession not simply as 
a constitutional remedy but also as a peaceable measure of redress.^^ 
They agreed in declaring that if the South were united on that measure 
and if it had made adequate preparation for defense, separation could 
be accomplished without war;^^ but this they were careful to state 
would not be the case unless the South were united. 

The constitutionality of secession, however, was not yet held to 
be beyond denial even by some of the most ardent advocates of the 
state's seceding and they were not disposed to rest their arguments 
in favor of the state's withdrawing from the Union as a measure of 
resistance to the compromise on that doctrine alone. The editor 
of the Mississippi Free Trader, a most thoroughgoing advocate of 
secession, declared that, although he did not believe that the mere 
fact of peaceful secession was, of itself, a violation of the constitu- 
tional compact, he was not disposed to rely on debatable points, 
but that he considered that "the wrong perpetuated against, and 
impending over the slaveholding states, would justify revolution by 
armed force, if it was necessary." 

But those in favor of resorting to secession as an ultimate measure 
of resistance to the compromise did not conJ&ne their arguments to 
justifying the use of that remedy either as a constitutional or a revo- 
lutionary right. They sought to arouse in the people of Mississippi 
a determination to resist the compromise by setting before them the 

^* Mississippi Free Trader, October 9, 1850. 

The Seashore Sentinel declared that "The slave states in order to he free, will 
be forced to erect a separate republic." Mississippi Free Trader, October 12, 

1850. 

The Southern Meeting in Marshall county, October 14, 1850, adopted unani- 
mously the resolution offered by Roger Barton: "that if we have to choose between 
a disgraceful submission to said measures and secession from the Union, we pre- 
fer the latter." Yazoo Democrat, October 31, 1850. 

According to the Yazoo Democrat this was "a numerous meeting" of the citi- 
zens of Marshall county and the call to it was "signed by many of the most respect- 
able citizens, without regard to old party distinctions." 

" Meeting of the citizens of Claiborne county, Mississippi Free Trader, No- 
vember 6, 1850, Supra Mississippi Free Trader, October 9, 1850, Supra. 

16 Letter of Jefferson Davis to Messrs. B. D. Nabors, Chas. B. Ames, C. F. Hem- 
mingwav, W. D. Lyle, C. R. Crusoe, Gen. H. Foote, W. Brooke, Jas. E. Sharkey, 
and A. M. West, November 19, 1850, Ibid., November 30, 1850. 

" Ibid., October 9, 1850. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of i85o—-Hearon. 165 

results of submission and the advantages of secession. They pro- 
claimed that the inevitable result of submission to the compromise 
would be the abolition of slavery and the consequent desolation of 
the South by the extermination of the white race or the indiscrimi- 
nate butchery of the slaves. ^^ 

In proof of this, they pointed out that the admission of California, 
by destroying the balance of power between the free and the slave 
states, gave the North power to control the admission of new states, 
and that it was simply a question of a few years before the non- 
slaveholding states would be in a sufficient majority to abolish slavery 
by an amendment to the constitution. Then, even if the North 
did not exercise its power and abohsh slavery, they declared, the 
very fact that it possessed it would produce the same result. For 
the border states would sell their slaves and abolish slavery; the slaves 
would be crowded into the extreme Southern states; and having no 
room for expansion and looking to the North for encouragement 
and support, they would be likely to rise in an insurrection that would 
lead to the extermination of one of the races of the South. 

In addition, they urged in favor of secession in resistance to the 
compromise that, by the separation of the slave states from the free 
states, the pretext of the abolitionists that the North by its connec- 
tion with the South was implicated in the sin of slavery would be 
destroyed and, also, that the abohtionists could be restrained from 
all interference with slavery in the Southern states by the law of na- 
tions. Furthermore, although they admitted that there was no 
certainty of the border states uniting with the other states in seces- 
sion, they pointed out that their doing so would be still more uncer- 
tain in a few years, for the causes that would influence them at that 
time to act with the South operated more forcibly then than they 
would in the future.^* 

But not aU those opposed to the compromise were in favor of re- 
sorting to secession in opposition to it even as a last resort. Some 
of the Democratic papers, in opposing the agitation in favor of that 
measure, reveal a cleavage, in the ranks of the opponents of the com 

^^Mississippi Free Trader, October 5, 1850; Yazoo Democrat, November 6, 
1850. 

1^ Mississippi Free Trader, October 5, 1850. 



i66 Mississippi Historical Society. 

promise, on that question, in the very beginning.^" The Kosciusko 
Chronicle based its opposition to secession on the ground that it would 
not accomplish the results the South sought. It asserted: 

We cannot believe our rights will be as much respected under a separate politi- 
cal existence as they have been under the Federal Constitution. In an event like 
the one iinder consideration, the vast boundary line separating us from foreign free 
states would prove most disasterous to the safety of slaveholders. The South 
would be literally hemmed in with free states, and a population on all sides opposed 
to our institutions. There would then be no restraining influence, no check to 
their depredations; those who now acknowledge our rights, and endeavor to protect 
them and our property, would at once cease their exertions, and leave our exposed 
frontiers abandoned to the wholesale depredations of lawless fanaticism. Ab- 
stractly considered, secession would perhaps be but an act of justice, but its policy 
must be ruinous in all its consequences, and therefore to be carried into effect only 
as a dernier resort.'^* 



20 The Natchez Semi-weekly Courier, October 22, 1850, iu a discussion of the 
position of the Mississippi press on disimion, also shows this cleavage in the be- 
ginning. It says: "The enquiry is often made of us, 'How stands the press upon 
the Union and disimion question?' It is no easy matter to tell exactly, because 
many papers shim the direct issue. Many talk largely about continued agitation, 
who would spurn the idea of being classed for disunion. This generally arises 
from an unwillingness to abandon and condemn a Governor and Congressional 
delegation, to whom they feel the strong attachment of party ties. They, there- 
fore, go as far as they can in following their lead, and when they come to the dis- 
imion doctrine, they prefer to stop and be silent. Hence arises the difficulty of 
correct classification. 

"We can count up about forty-six political journals in the State. Of these, we 
exchange with aU but two or three. There are, besides four neutral papers, not 
one of which we believe has the slightest affinity to disunionism. The pohtical 
press we classify as follows: 

Whig, and for the Union 22 

Democratic, and for the Union 7 

Democratic, and avowedly disunion 5 

Democratic, and strongly agitationist 9 

Democratic, and favoring Governor's proclamation, but opposed to dis- 
union as a present remedy 2 

Unknown i 

"There is one remarkable thing too about this. Every one of the five avowed- 
ly disunion presses is published, it is believed, in a community decidedly opposed 
to the pernicious doctrine they inculcate." 

21 Quotation from the Kosciusko Chronicle, Natchez Semi-weekly Courier, Octo- 
ber 18, 1850. 

The Defnocrat of Carroll county was, also, opposed to disunion and declared 
that in a recent meeting held in Carroll county it did not believe "that there was 
a man in the house who believed that the measures passed by Congress afford 
sufficient grounds for a dissolution of the Union." Natchez Semi-weekly Courier, 
October 15, 1850. 

The Columbus Republican assured its readers that of one thing they might rest 
assured, "the people of Lowndes county, in spite of infinite shades of opinion re- 
specting the late adjustment, are for the Union yet awhile, and do not regard the 
late bills as sufficient cause for dissolution." Natchez Semi-weekly Courier, No- 
vember 8, 1850. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850— Hearon. 167 

But even those most actively engaged in the agitation in favor of 
secession as a final resort in resisting the compromise denied that 
they were working to break up the Union. The Mississippian 
asserted, in its reply to the charges against the Democratic party in 
Mississippi made by Foote in his speech in Jackson on October 17: 

We are not seeking to dissolve the Union. Our great object is to preserve the 
Union, by demanding our rights under the constitution, and it is only in the event 
that we are driven to secession by the failure of all modes of redress that such an 
event can possibly take place.^ 

The Yazoo Democrat, also, claimed that "the Southern Rights 
party" was "the conservative party." It declared: 

The Southern Rights men see the danger and believe that it will and ought to 
cause a dissolution of the Union, and alarmed for its safety, call upon lovers of the 
Union to band together and if possible come to its rescue by adopting some effec- 
tual mode of saving it.'" 

The leaders who advocated secession as a final resort in opposing 
the compromise also defended themselves and their followers from 
the charge of favoring a dissolution of the Union. Jefferson Davis 
asserted that a most unfair attempt had been made to put in the 
foreground the question of union or disunion, by those who were 
violating or surrendering the constitutional rights to the South. He 
declared: 

To yield to aggression is to produce, certainly in the future, that condition from 
which dissolution must, and civil war probably will spring; unless it be assumed, 
that the Southern minority will hereafter consent to occupy such position towards 
the Northern majority as the colonies of North America, on the 4th of Julj^ 1776, 

determined not to hold towards the Kingdom of Great Britain To 

preserve the Union, the principles, the spirit of the constitution must be preserved. 
I do not think the North has given us reason to expect this service from that quarter; 

22 Quoted from the Mississippian, October 25, 1850, in the Mississippi Free 
Trader, October 30, 1850. 

2* Yazoo Democrat, November 20, 1850. 

In defending the leaders of the Southern Rights party from the charge of being 
"disunionists," the Yazoo Democrat declared that "these shameless calumniators 
dare an immorality of infamy" by denoimcing as disimionists and disorganizers 
such patriots as Quitman, Wilkinson, Davis, Guion, Tompkins, and a host of 
others, for their bold advocacy of Southern Rights; and added: "The clear expo- 
sition which Col. Davis made of his position, when in Yazoo, pleased and met 
the approbation of all parties, a few individuals only excepted; he was regarded 
as laying down a platform upon which the whole South could imite. His posi- 
tion and that of the party acting with him was altogether conservative. His ob- 
ject was to anticipate the danger and prevent it, and not sit quietly by and await 
the evil and then dissolve the Union." 



1 68 Mississippi Historical Society. 

how shall the South effect it? This, to my mind, is the question to which we 
should direct our investigation. 

Whatever can effect that end will give perpetuity to the Union; if it cannot be 
reached, the government changes its character; there might remain an Union, 
but not the Union.** 

But A. G. Brown, as he was most outspoken in favor of resorting 
to secession as a final measure of resistance to the compromise, was 
also most emphatic in defending himself against the charge of being a 
disunionist. In his speech at Ellwood Springs, November 2, 1850, 
he made a strong defense of himself against that charge in staunchly- 
maintaining the necessity of resisting the compromise to preserve 
the Union. He said: 

Let me say to you, in all sincerity, fellow citizens, that I am no disunionist. 
If I know my own heart, I am more concerned about the means of preserving the 
Union than I am about the means of destroying it. The danger is not that we 
shall dissolve the Union, by bold and manly vindication of our rights, but rather 
that we shall, in abandoning our rights, abandon the Union also. So help me 
God, I believe the submissionists are the very worst enemies of the Union. There 
is certainly some point beyond which the most abject will refuse to submit. If 
we yield now how long do you suppose it will be before we shall be called upon to 
submit again? And does not every human experience admonish us that the more 
we yield, the greater will become the exaction of the aggressors 

The best friend of the Union is he who stands boldly up and demands equal 
justice for every state and for all sections. If I have demanded more than this 
convince me, and I will withdraw the demand. 

This justice was denied us in the adjustment bills But we 

are not to infer the fault was either in the Union or in the constitution 

Every thinking, reasoning man knows that in the war upon slavery, the consti- 
tution and the Union have been diverted from their original purpose. Instead 
of being shields against lawless tyranny, they have been made engines of oppres- 
sion to the South. And am I, a Southern citizen, to be deterred from saying so 

by this senseless cry of disunion I will demand my rights and the 

rights of my section, be the consequences what they may. It is the inperative 
duty of every good citizen to maintain and defend the Constitution and the Union 
and this can only be done by demanding and enforcing justice. Let us make the 
demand and let us enforce it, and let the consequences rest on the heads of those 
who violate the Constitution and subvert the Union in the war upon justice, equality 
and right. 

We are told that our difficulties are at an end; that, unjust as we all know the 
late action of Congress to have been, it is better to submit, and especially, is it better, 

since this is to be the end of the slavery agitation I might be 

willing to submit if this was to be the end of our troubles. But I know it is not to 

be the end. I know it has not been the end thus far Listen to the 

notes of preparation everywhere in the Northern States, and tell me if men do 
not wilfully deceive you when they say that the slavery agitation is over. I tell 
you fellow citizens, it is not all over. It never will be over so long as you continue 

2* Letter of Jefferson Davis in response to a letter of inquiry addressed to him 
by B. D. Nabors, Chas. B. Ames, C. F. Hemmingway, W. D. Lyle, C. R. Crusoe, 
H. Foote, W. Brooke, Jas. E. Sharkey, A. M. West, Jackson, Mississippi, No- 
vember 19, 1850. Mississippi Free leader, November 30, 1850. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hear on. 169 

to recede before the pressure of Northern power. You cannot secure your rights; 
you cannot save the Union or the constitution, by following the trivial counsels of 
the submissionists. Pursue these counsels, and they will lead to a sacrifice of all 
that we hold dear — of life, liberty, property, and the Union itself. By a submis- 
sion you may secure, not a Union, but a connection with the North. It will be 
such a connection as exists between Ireland and England, Poland and Russia, 
Hungary and Austria. It will not, it can not be the Union of our fathers — it can 
not be a Union of equals.^^ 

During the agitation in favor of resistance to the compromise, 
those opposed to that measure continued the formation of plans for 
carrying that pohcy into effect. The people in public meetings rec- 
ommended that the legislature should call a convention of the state 
to determine the mode and measures of redress^^ and instructed their 
representatives in the legislature to vote for such a measure ;^^ while 
the leaders formulated and advocated the demands that should be 
made by that convention and the measures of redress that it should 
recommend. 

A. G. Brown, as would be expected, boldly advocated a definite 
and clear cut program of resistance. In his speech at Ellwood Springs, 
after expressing the hope that the legislature would call a convention 
through which the sovereign will of the state could be spoken and that 
such movement in Mississippi would be responded to in most, if not 
all, the Southern states. Brown proceeded to set forth with the ut- 
most freedom his opinion as to the course Mississippi and the other 
Southern states should pursue.^^ He said: 

We should demand a restoration of the laws of Texas in haec verba over the 
country which has been taken from her and added to New Mexico. In other words,, 
we should demand the clear and undisputed right to carry our slave property to 
that country, and have it protected and secured to us after we get it there; and 
we should demand a continuation of this right and of this security and protection. 

We should demand the same right to go into all the territories with our slave 
property, that citizens of the free states have to go with any species of property, 

=» Speech of A. G. Brown at Ellwood Springs, near Port Gibson, Mississippi, 
November 2, 1850. Cluskey, Speeches, Messages, and Other Writings of the Hon. 
Albert G. Broivn, 256-258. ^^ _ , rs ^ 

26 Southern Rights Meeting in Yazoo, October 7, 1850, Yazoo Democrat, Octo- 
ber ID, 1850; Southern Meeting in Marshall county, October 14, 1850, Fozoo 
Democrat, October 31, 1850; MQetingin Claihome county, Mississippi Free Irader, 
November 6, 1850. o tj- n 1 

" Southern Meeting in MarshaU county, October 14, 1850, Yazoo Democrat, 
October 31, 1850. . , ^u ,. 

28 Brown was careful to say that he spoke for himself alone and that no man or 
party was in any way responsible for what he said. Cluskey, Speeches, Messages, 
and Other Writings of the Hon. A. G. Brown, 259. 



170 Mississippi Historical Society. 

and we should demand for our property the same protection that is given to the 
property of our Northern brethren. No more, nor less. 

We should demand that Congress abstain from all interference with slavery in 
the territories, in the District of Columbia, in the states, on the high seas, or any- 
where else, except to give it protection, and this protection should be the same 
that is given to other property. 

We should demand a continuation of the present fugitive slave law or some 
other law which should be effective in carrying out the mandate of the constitu- 
tion for the delivery of fugitive slaves. 

We should demand that no state be denied admission into the Union because 
her constitution tolerated slavery. 

In all this we should ask nothing but meagre justice; and a refusal to grant such 
reasonable demands would show a fixed and settled purpose in the North to op- 
press and iinally destroy the Southern States If the demands here set forth, 
and such others as would most effectually secure the South against further distur- 
bance, should be denied, and that denial should be manifested by any act of the 
Federal Government, we ought forthwith to dissolve aU political connection with 
the Northern States,^' 

Davis, ever more cautious and reserved in expressing his opinions 
than Brown, contented himself with more general recommendations. 
He proposed that the legislature should submit to the people the 
question of assembling a convention of the state to consider the 
existing conditions and future prospects and to decide on the meas- 
ures that should be adopted; to prepare for the defense of the state, 
armed if need be; and to propose a convention of the slaveholding 
states, to be composed of formally elected delegates, to unite all those 
states who were willing to assert their equality with the other states of 
the Union and their right to an equal enjoyment of the common prop- 
erty and to equal protection in that enjoyment. The states united 
in this convention should, in his opinion, demand of the other states 
such guarantees as would secure to them the safety, the benefits, 
and the tranquillity that the Union was designed to confer. If these 
demands were granted, the minority could live in equality under the 
temple of the federal compact; but if they were refused, it would be 
conclusive evidence of the design of the majority, to crush all paper 
barriers beneath the heel of power, and the gulf of degradation would 
yawn before the minority. If the alternative of slavish submission 
or manly resistance was thus presented to the South, Davis declared 
that he should be in favor of the latter. Then if full provision had 
been made, in the preparation of arms, of munitions of war, of manu- 
facturing establishments, and all the varieties of agriculture to which 

2' Speech of A. G Brown at Ellwood Springs, November 2, 1850, Cluskey, 
Speeches, Messages, and Other Writings of the Hon. Albert G. Brown, 259-260. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hear on. 171 

their climate and soil were adapted, he asserted that the slaveholding 
states, or even the planting states, might apply the last remedy,— the 
final alternative of separation, without bloodshed or severe shock to 
commercial interests.'" 

While those opposed to submitting to the compromise were thus 
seeking to arouse the state against that measure, those in favor of 
submission were working with equal ardor to prevent the state's 
adopting any policy of resistance. Although the Port Gibson Herald 
asserted, with seeming confidence: "That the legislature will be 
prepared to sustain the Governor, we cannot for a moment believe 
and the probabiHty is, that they will assemble, receive the message 
and adjourn sine die"^^ the " submissionists" really felt no such 
confidence. For the legislature had been elected in the fall of 1849, 
when the South was deeply moved over the anti-slavery sentiment 
manifested in the North in behalf of the passage of the Wilmot pro- 
viso and the aboUtion of slavery and the slave trade in the District 
of Columbia; and its members were, for the most part, men of ex- 
treme Southern views, who might be coimted on as strongly in favor 
of resisting the compromise. Therefore, the "submissionists" strove 
to arouse public sentiment against resistance to the compromise so 
as to bring pressure to bear on the legislature to prevent its taking 
any action to further that policy. 

They actively supported Foote in canvassing the state to insure 
the success of the mass meeting of the friends of the Union from 
every part of the state called by him, in the opening speech of his 
campaign, to meet in Jackson, on the day of the assembling of the 
legislature. In addition, through speeches, public meetings, the 
press, and every other available means, they sought to influence 
popular sentiment in Mississippi in favor of their views. 

Judge Sharkey, whose influence was great because of the conspic- 
uous part he had played in the Southern movement, lent effective 
support to this campaign in favor of submission to the compromise. 



30 Letter of Davis in response to a letter addressed to him by B. D. Nabors, 
Chas. B. Ames, C. F. Hemmingway, W. D. Lyle, C. R. Crusoe, Gen. H. Foote, 
W. Brooke, Jas. E. Sharkey, A. M. West, Jackson, Mississippi, November ig, 
1850, Mississippi Free Trader, November 30, 1850; Speech of Davis at Benton in 
Yazoo county, Yazoo Democrat, November 6, 1850. 

" Quotation from the Part Gibson Herald, Natchez Semi-weekly Courier, Octo 
ber 15, 1850 



172 Mississippi Historical Society. 

His part was to demonstrate that the purpose of the Southern move- 
ment was accompHshed in the compromise and that the party in 
favor of resisting that measure was going far beyond the demands of 
Mississippi as formulated by the October convention and the legis- 
lature and, also, the demands of the South as expressed by the 
Nashville convention. 

In sustaining this position, in a speech before a Union meeting in 
Vicksburg, October 8, 1850, Judge Sharkey advanced many of the 
arguments that were to be used with the most effect by those in favor 
of submission to the compromise. The object of the October con- 
vention in Mississippi, he declared, was to protect the constitutional 
rights of the people of the state and to preserve the Union unimpaired 
by preserving the constitution inviolate. He asserted: 

We desired to concentrate public opinion and to act in advance of the meeting 
of Congress, so that by the moral force of our movement, extreme action by that 
body might be prevented. We did not meditate anything but preventive meas- 
ures, except upon the contingency that we should be forced to take an extreme 

stand We did not wish to endanger the Union, and therefore hoped 

that violent measures might not be forced upon us. 

In proof of this, he referred his hearers to the address which pre- 
ceded the meeting of the convention, the resolutions adopted by 
that body, and the address prepared by the committee appointed 
by the convention for that purpose, — all of which, he declared, 
breathed a spirit of devotion to the Union. 

The convention, according to Sharkey, expressly declared a de- 
termination to keep within the pale of the constitution; and, having 
so declared, enumerated, as the acts to which it would not submit, 
the passage by Congress of a law abolishing slavery in the District 
of Columbia, prohibiting the slave trade between the several states, 
or prohibiting the introduction of slavery into the territories of the 
United States. But it refused to say that it would regard the action 
of Congress on a mere question of expediency, confessedly within 
its power, as a ground of resistance. Furthermore, the legislature, 
also, refused to go beyond the demands of the October convention 
and declare that the admission of California would be a breach of 
the constitution and pledge forcible resistance to it. 

Therefore, Sharkey held that, in the measures of the compromise, 
Congress had respected the demands of Mississippi. He, also, thought 
that the action of Congress and the speeches made in that body in- 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 173 

dicated an abatement of the desire, which had been so generally ex- 
hibited in the North, to press ofifensive measures upon the South. 

The resolutions of the Nashville convention, he held, did not go 
further than those of the Mississippi convention, and perhaps not so 
far. Resistance was not spoken of or alluded to in them, except in 
one contingency, that was, if Congress should discriminate against 
the right to take slaves into the territories; and it was fair to infer 
that nothing else was thought worthy of resistance. The eleventh 
resolution, he admitted, took a wider range than was taken by the 
October convention, and proposed a readiness to acquiesce in the 
Missouri compromise line extended to the Pacific. Although this 
was generally construed as laying down an ultimatum, he could 
not believe it was so regarded by the convention. He did not so re- 
gard it and was satisfied that many others did not; and, as such, he 
did not believe it would have received the vote of the convention. 
For he and others regarded the admission of CaUfornia as a mere 
question for Congress to determine and they would, therefore, have 
been unwilling to commit themselves to that line as an ultimatum. 
Even the address, he declared, did not hold the position that the ad- 
mission of California would violate the constitution. In his oppo- 
sition to it in the convention, he had taken the groimd that it did so 
in argument, at least, and that he could not approve it for that 
reason, amongst others; but he had been stopped by the gentleman 
who had introduced it and told that that was an unwarranted as- 
sxmiption. 

In concluding this speech, Sharkey advanced the arguments that 
were really to decide a majority of the people of Mississippi against 
resistance to the compromise. He said: 

Now, the question is, what is to be done. ShaU we submit or secede from the 
Union? There is no middle ground that I can see in the present attitude of affairs 
—If there were, I might be content to take it, but I see none. We must take our 
stand on the one side or the other. To resist, is to dismember the Union, for tHere 
is no law on the disputed subjects operating within our state for us to resist, and 
CaUfornia is beyond our reach; we cannot remove her from the Union, nor can we 

obtain any portion of her But whilst it is admitted by many 

that the admission of California is not of itself a sufficient cause for assuming a 
hostUe attitude, yet it is contended that it evinces a determination on the part of 
the North to persevere in its object, and, therefore, we should resist. Then we 
are to dissolve the Union in the anticipation of a good cause. This will not do; 
let us wait until it comes. It may never come.^^ 

32 Speech of W. L. Sharkey before a Union meeting in Vicksburg, October 8, 
1850, Hinds County Gazette, October 31, 1850. 



174 Mississippi Historical Society. 

The need of secession as a measure for the protection of the minor- 
ity had not yet been sufficiently felt in Mississippi for the people, 
generally, to have accepted it as an article of their political creed of 
which they would permit no denial. Accordingly, those in favor 
of submission to the compromise sought to enforce the arguments 
against resistance by denying that a state had the right under the 
constitution to secede and, also, by asserting that peaceable secession 
was impossible. The Natchez Courier, as proof that Mississippi had 
no such constitutional right, pointed to the ordinance drawn up by 
the first constitutional convention of Mississippi in which the con- 
vention in behalf of the people of Mississippi renounced certain rights 
forever and declared the ordinance to be irrevocable without the 
consent of the United States. The Courier also argued that if the 
Union were a compact, as those who believed in the right of secession 
asserted, it was made by the assent of not one but of many, and, 
therefore, if Mississippi had the right to say she would, of her own 
vohtion, go out of the Union, in which she was but one of thirty-one 
states, every other state had the same privilege of saying she should 
not go out, except by common consent. As there was no umpire be- 
tween these sovereign states but the sword, the Courier asked, 
"Where, then, is peaceable secession?"'* 

As the date for the meeting of the legislature drew near, the Whig 
papers became increasingly emphatic in their declarations that the 
people of Mississippi were opposed to disunion and in favor of acqui- 
escing in the compromise. They asserted that they received daily 
proofs of the determination of the people of the state to rebuke the 
fell spirit of disunion, and to stand by the constitution and its safe- 
guards; that the people of Mississippi were opposed to any further 
agitation on the subject of slavery and did not desire to hold any 
more conventions on that subject; and that they were heartily tired 
of the whole question and would be perfectly satisfied to acquiesce 
in the action of Congress, if they were permitted to judge for them- 
selves.^ 

However the leaders of those in favor of resisting the compromise 
were not moved by these arguments of the " submissionists" and 

" Natchez Semi-weekly Courier, October i8, 1850. 

^ Quotation from the Lexington Advertiser in the Natchez Courier, November 
8, 1850. 






Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hear on. 175 

continued their campaign to influence the legislature to carry out 
their views and to prepare the people of the state to support them. 
As a means to further these objects as well as to unite the South on 
definite measures of resistance, they advocated the reassembling of 
the Nashville convention. 

Although Judge Sharkey refused to call a second meeting of that 
convention, delegates from Alabama, South Carolina, Georgia, Missis- 
sippi, Florida, Tennessee, and Virginia assembled in Nashville, No- 
vember II, 1850.^^ With the exception of those from South Caro- 
lina, these delegates were irregularly chosen^^ and from the manner 
of their choice were, for the most part, more radical in their views 
than those who had been present at the first meeting of the conven- 
tion. 

But they were not unanimous as to the action the convention should 
take. The South Carolina delegates were in favor of a resolution 
introduced by Langdon Cheves, declaring that secession by the joint 
action of the slaveholding states was the only effective remedy for 
their wrongs;" whereas those from Tennessee advocated acquiescing 
in the adjustment effected by Congress and opposed the calling of 
a convention of the Southern states imless Congress should commit 
further aggressions on the rights of the South.^^ A majority of the 
delegates, however, were in favor of a course between these two and 
the convention adopted, as its oflicial utterance, a preamble offered 
by Governor Clay, of Alabama, and a series of resolutions based on 
those presented by the Mississippi delegates. 



^ According to the National Intelligencer November 16, 1850, there were 5 dele- 
gates from Alabama, 16 from South Carolina, 11 from Georgia, 8 from Mississippi, 
4 from Florida, 14 from Tennessee, and i from Virginia. The delegates from 
Mississippi were as follows: J. M. Acker, J. J. Davenport, A. Hutchinson, W. H. 
Kilpatrick, Pearson Smith, Thos. J. Wharton, J. C. Thompson, Chas. McLaran. 
National Intelligencer, November 28, 1850. 

38 None of the delegates appointed by the legislature of Mississippi attended 
the second session of the Nashville convention. John D. Freeman says that Gov. 
Quitman, without any authority, appointed three delegates to represent him in 
this convention {Cong. Globe, 32 Cong., i Sess., appx., 338). Others were appointed," 
as had been suggested in the address issued by the first meeting of the convention, 
by public meetings in the various counties. Meeting in Yazoo county, October 
7, 1850, Yazoo Democrat, October 10, 1850; Southern Meeting in Marshall county, 
October 14, 1850, Ibid., October 31, 1850; Meeting in Claiborne county, Missis- 
sippi Free Trader, November 6, 1850. 

*^ National Era, November 21, 1850. 

" Cluskey, Political Text-Book, 535-536. 



176 Mississippi Historical Society. 

These resolutions asserted the sovereignty of the states and the 
right of secession, declared that in the measures of the compromise 
all the e\dls that had been anticipated by the South had been real- 
ized, and recommended that all parties in the Southern states should 
refuse to take part in any national convention for the nomination of a 
president or a vice-president until the constitutional rights of the South 
were secured, and that the slaveholding states should meet in a con- 
gress or convention "intrusted with full power and authority to 
deliberate and act with the view and intention of arresting further 
aggression, and, if possible, of restoring the constitutional rights of 
the South, and, if not, to provide for their future safety and inde- 
pendence."^^ 

On the day of the adjournment of the Nashville convention, the 
legislature of Mississippi and the mass meeting of "the friends of the 
Union" assembled in Jackson. Governor Quitman submitted to 
the former body a long and elaborate message which, although he 
assumed entire responsibility for the suggestions it contained, was 
framed with the advice of the leaders of the party of resistance and 
may be regarded as an expression of the views of that party, colored 
somewhat, of course, by the extreme opinions of Quitman himself. 

After discussing the progress of the anti-slavery sentiment and 
pointing out the injustice done the South by the compromise meas- 
ures and the dangers that menaced the state. Governor Quitman 
proceeded to set forth the program of resistance that he had formed. 
To devise and carry into efifect the best means of redress for the past, 
he recommended: 

That a legal convention of the people of the state should be called, with full 
and complete powers to take into consideration our federal relations, the aggres- 
sions which have been committed upon the rights of the Southern States, the dan- 
gers which threaten our domestic institutions, and all kindred subjects; and jointly 
with other states, or separately, to adopt such measures as may best comport with 
the dignity and safety of the state, and effectually correct the evils complained of. 

Although he had little hope that the guarantees indispensably 
necessary to the safety of the South would be yielded by a majority 
flushed with recent victories and encouraged by apparent divisions 
among the Southern people, yet to leave no effort at conciliation 
untried, and still more to unite with them those of their own people 

^' Cluskey, Political Text-Book, 534-535. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hear on. I'j'j 

who still looked for a returning sense of justice in the North, he rec- 
ommended that the convention should distinctly make to the people 
of the non-slaveholding states a proposition to remedy the wrong 
done the South, so far as it might be in the power of Congress to do 
so, by obtaining from California concessions south of 36° 30' or other- 
wise, and to consent to such amendments of the federal constitution 
as would thereafter secure the rights of the slaveholding states from 
misconstruction and further aggression. 

But Quitman did not hesitate to express the decided opinion that, 
if these demands were refused, the only effectual remedy for the evils 
that must continue to grow from year to year was to be found in the 
prompt and peaceable secession of the aggrieved states. Hence, 
he urged that the probability of the ultiiiiate necessity of a resort 
to this effective and unquestionable right of sovereign states should 
be kept in view, whatever measure might be adopted by Mississippi, 
either alone or in concert with her sister states, to remedy the exist- 
ing evils. 

Furthermore, he declared that, in the meantime, it was of the high- 
est importance that some common center of opinion and action should 
be authoritatively established and suggested that this might be 
effected by the conventions of the several assenting states providing 
for a committee of safety for each state. These committees, he ad- 
vised, shouJd periodically assemble for the transaction of business 
and should be invested with adequate power, absolute or contingent, 
to act for their respective states upon all questions connected with 
the preservation and protection of their domestic institutions and 
their equal rights as sovereign states. Such a body of men, he held, 
even if clothed with the authority of only two or three states, would 
command respect and secure quiet and peaceable results to their 
determinations. 

Quitman and his advisers, however, clearly understood that the 
success of their plans depended on the cooperation of other Southern 
states and the support of the people of Mississippi. Therefore 
Quitman, in concludmg his message, said that the suggestions he 
made might be modified or changed by the results of the Nashville 
convention then in session or by the action of the Georgia convention, 
which was soon to meet. Moreover, he yielded the right of deciding 
the questions at issue to the people of Mississippi and declared that 



Its-. 



1^8 Mississippi Historical Society. 



when the sovereign power had spoken all good citizens, whatever 
might be their opinions, would acquiesce.^" 

In another message to the legislature Governor Quitman recom- 
mended, further, the organization of volunteer companies, providing 
a fund for their equipment and support, and requiring that the ofl&cers 
and men should take an oath to serve for the term of five years.*^ 

The opponents of the policy of resisting the compromise were, 
also, prepared, through the mass meeting that had assembled in 
Jackson, to send in their message to the legislature. This meeting 
was respectable in numbers*^ and both parties were represented in 
it, though the Whigs were greatly in the majority.'" Judge Sharkey 
was made president and Foote, standing in an opening made by the 
removal of a window so that he could speak to those assembled both 
within the hall and on the outside, made the great speech of the 
occasion.'" 

The proceedings of this meeting, however, were of more importance 
in other respects than as an attempt to influence the action of the 
legislature. For those present were evidently convinced that the 
legislature would follow the advice of Quitman and call a convention 
of the people of the state; and, therefore, for the purpose of making 
a more effective struggle against resistance to the compromise in 
the election of delegates to the convention, they proceeded to organ- 
ize "the Union party" and to draw up a platform on which they 
could appeal to the people of the state for a decision, in that contest, 
in favor of acquiescing in the compromise. 

After denouncing the message of Governor Quitman as treasonable 
to the nation,''^ those participating in the meeting proceeded to ex- 
press their views on the questions before the legislature. They de- 
clared that Congress had passed no law inconsistent with the prin- 

*• Message of Governor Quitman to the legislature November iS, 1850, Clai- 
borne, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, II, 46-51- 

« Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., i Sess., appx., 337. 

*2 Foote says that 1500 people took part in this meetmg. Foote, Caskei of 
Reminiscences, 353. 

« The New York Tribune, December 7, 1850, says there were more Whigs than 
Democrats in this meeting and A. G. Brown gives the proportion of Whigs to 
Democrats as five to one. Cong. Globe, 32 Cong., i Sess., 356. 

« Foote, Casket of Reminiscences, 353. The New York Tribune mentions 
Foote, Gen. I. N. Davis, and John D. Freeman as among the speakers and mana- 
gers of the meeting. New York Semi-weekly Tribune, December 7, 1850. 

« Speech of J. D. Freeman, Cong. Globe, 32 Cong., i Sess., appx., 337. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 179 

ciples asserted by the convention of October, 1849, ^xid that, there- 
fore, no contingency had arisen that could excuse or palliate forcible 
resistance to its action; that the compromise measures were consti- 
tutional enactments and were the laws of the land and imperatively 
demanded the acquiescence of every citizen of the United States 
so long as they should remain unaltered and imrepealed; that the 
friends of the Union were the friends of the safety, prosperity, and 
happiness of the people of Mississippi; that they were resolved with 
the assistance of Almighty God to preserve that Union, because they 
believed that therein they should preserve to themselves the inesti- 
mable blessing of civil and religious liberty bequeathed to them by 
their forefathers; and that, as American citizens, duly appreciating 
the advantages of that Union, they held themselves ready at all 
times to respond to the call of their common country and to peril 
their lives, their fortxmes and their sacred honor in its defense. 

But even these "friends of the Union" in Mississippi, who were 
willing to accept the compromise measures as a. fait accompli, were 
ready to declare that there were certain proposed measures of legis- 
lation to which they would not submit. They definitely announced: 
"That whilst we acquiesce in the enactments of the late session of 
Congress and feel a strong attachment and veneration for the Union 
estabhshed by our forefathers, still we declare that violations of our 
rights may occur which would amount to 'intolerable oppression.' 
and would justify a resort to measures of resistance; amongst which 
are the following: 

1. The interference by congressional legislation with the institution of slavery 
in the states. 

2. Interference in the trade in slaves between the states. 

3. The abolition by Congress of slavery in the District of Columbia. 

4. The refusal by Congress to admit a new state into the Union on the ground 
of her tolerating slavery within her limits. 

5. The passage of any law by Congress prohibitmg slavery m any of the terri- 
tories. 

6. The repeal of the fugitive slave law, or the refusal by the General govern- 
ment to enforce the constitutional provisions for the reclamation of Fugitive Slaves. 

« The New York Semi-weekly Tribune, December 7, 1850, after giving the reso- 
lutions added: "And this the Union party." r . • j- 

This mass meeting did not originate this platform for it was set forth in an edi- 
torial in the Washington Union, November 14, 1850, urging that the compromise 
must be sustained as a treaty of peace and amity between the two sections. It 
was later adopted bv the convention of the state of Georgia and, as the Georgia 
platform," was accepted by the majority in the South as the basis of submission 



i8o Mississippi Historical Society. 

"But," they added, "we are now and at all times opposed to any 
agitation by conventions or otherwise, of these questions, reserving 
the mode and measures of redress until such injury shall be inflicted." 

The meeting, also, approved the efforts of Foote to preserve the 
Union and declared that his patriotic endeavors for that purpose 
entitled him to their confidence and gratitude. 

Finally, they asserted that they believed that there was ample 
evidence of the prosecution of an organized plan by "agitators, dis- 
organizers, and disunionists of the South" for the purpose of de- 
stroying the glorious Union and forming a Southern confederacy, and 
that therefore they heartily concurred in the necessity of a full and 
complete organization of the friends of the Union in Mississippi^^ and 
recommended the citizens of the several coimties to form associa- 
tions the object of which should be the preservation of the Union. 
Furthermore, those taking part in this meeting declared that they 
regarded the existing crisis and the momentous questions at issue 
as justifying the obliteration of all party lines; imited, heart and hand, 
as "a Union party" for the preservation of the Union; and called a 
convention of the friends of the Union to be held the first Monday 
of May, 1851.^^ 

The legislature, as the " Friends of the Union' ' had foreseen, was 
unmoved by the proceedings of the mass meeting and, though the 
minority made a gallant opposition,^^ proceeded to support the policy 
of resistance to the compromise. It passed resolutions approving 
the course of Davis and the representatives in Congress from Mis- 
sissippi on all questions involving the slavery controversy before 
Congress at the late session, and censuring that of Foote and declaring 
that it did not consider the interests of the state of Mississippi com- 
mitted to his charge, safe in his keeping. 



to the compromise. It was originated, no doubt, by those in favor of acquies- 
cing in the compromise, both to forestall further aggressions on the rights of the 
South and to reassure those who were hesitating to acquiesce in the compromise 
because they feared such aggressions. 

^' The suggestion for such an organization, according to the resolution, was 
made by the citizens of Noxubee county. 

** Resolutions of the Great Mass Meeting and Convention of the Friends of 
the Union at Jackson, November 18, 1850, Vickshurg Whig, November 27, 1850. 

^^ The excitement in Jackson, at this time, was intense, the administration and the 
opposition parties held meetings every night, and the discussions in the legislature 
were very bitter. New York Sefui-weekly Tribune, November 30, 1850. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 



181 



It also fulfilled the purpose for which it was called together, by- 
providing for a convention of the people of the state of Mississippi. 
It justified this measure on the grounds that the legislation of Con- 
gress, controlled, as that body was, by a dominant majority regard- 
less of the constitutional rights of the slaveholding states and reflect- 
ing the will of a section that was hostile in feeling and opposed in 
principle to a long established and cherished institution of Mis- 
sissippi and the other Southern states, afiforded alarming evidence 
of a settled purpose on the part of the majority to destroy that in- 
stitution and subvert the sovereign power of Mississippi and the other 
slaveholding states; and that it was becoming and proper that a sov- 
ereign state when it was assailed should promptly resort to the most 
efl&cient means for the maintenance of its sovereignty and the pres- 
ervation of its constitutional rights as a member of the confederacy, 
by the exercise of the highest power recognized under its republican 
form of government, — the expressed will of the sovereign people. 

In providing for the convention, the legislature enacted that each 
county should be represented by as many delegates as it had repre- 
sentatives in the lower house of the legislature, that the delegates 
should be elected on the first Monday and the day following in Sep- 
tember, 185 1, and that the convention should be held the second 
Monday in November, 185 1. Furthermore, the legislature enacted 
that the convention, when it had assembled, should proceed "to 
consider the then existing relations between the Government of the 
United States and the Government and people of the State of Mis- 
sissippi, to devise and carry into effect the best means of redress for 
the past, and obtain certain security for the future, and to adopt 
such measures for vindicating the sovereignty of the State, and the 
protection of its institutions as shall appear to them to be demanded.'"*" 

Those in Mississippi who favored resisting the compromise, had 
won in the first campaign over the course of Mississippi in regard 
to that measure. But as, with only a few exceptions, they were 
convinced that any effective resistance to the compromise depended 
on the cooperation of the Southern states, the legislature had fixed 
the time of the election and the assembling of the convention so as 
to give the people of Mississippi ample opportunity of learning 

*» Laws of the State of Mississippi passed at a called session of the legislature, 
1850, 25. 



i82 Mississippi Historical Society. 

definitely what support they might expect from other Southern 
states in resistance to that measure. Therefore, a longer and greater 
campaign lay before those in favor of resisting the compromise, in 
which their appeal would have to be made not to the legislature, but 
to the people of the state and in which the success of that appeal 
would be determined largely by the attitude of the other Southern 
states toward resistance. 



CHAPTER X. 

THE ELECTION OF DELEGATES TO THE CONVENTION OF 1851. 

Old party lines having given way in Mississippi to some extent, 
in the beginning of the struggle over the convention of 1851, new 
parties were organized for the election of delegates to that convention, 
on the definite issue of submission or resistance to the compromise. 
As has been seen the Union party was formed, in the mass meeting 
in Jackson, November i8, 1850, by those in favor of acquiescing in 
the compromise, and provided with a platform and a definite plan 
for both central and local organizations. In addition, it was furnished 
an oflScial organ, to offset the influence of the Mississippian, in the 
Southron, the former organ of the Whig party in the state capital, 
under the name of the Flag of the Union} 

Those in favor of resisting the compromise, not being so fortimate 
as to have assembled, at this time, a mass meeting of the citizens of 
the state, turned to other machinery, which they found at hand, for 
the organization of a Southern Rights party. In July, 1850, "The 
Southern States' Rights Association" had been formed in Jackson, 
the object of which was "to protect, maintain, and defend the con- 
stitutional rights of the South by all legal and proper means,"^ and 
similar organizations had, also, been formed in other parts of the 
state. The leaders of the party of resistance determined to use 
these associations to organize a Southern Rights party. Accordingly, 
the one in Jackson was made "The Central Southern Rights Asso- 
ciation of Mississippi," the others already formed were invited to 
affiliate with it, and, in counties where there were no such asso- 



1 New York Semi-weekly Tribune, December 7, 1850. 
* Mississippi Free Trader, July 27, 1850. . , , . 

The association was to meet at least once a fortnight and some member was to 
be appointed to deliver an address at each meeting, after which there was to be a 
general discussion. The officers elected were president, John A. Quitman, vice- 
president, John I. Guion, secretary, J. T. Simms, treasurer, C. R. Dickson ex- 
ecutive committee, Hon. C. R. Clifton, Colonel George R. Fall, and General John 
M. Duffield. 

183 



i84 Mississippi Historical Society. 

ciations, prominent advocates of Southern rights were urged to form 
them immediately.^ 

Furthermore, to set forth the views of the party on the questions 
at issue and to furnish a statement of principles to which the members 
of these associations could be invited to subscribe and on which they 
could rally the state against the platform of the Union party, the 
Central Southern Rights Association appointed a committee^ to draw 
up a formal address to the people of the state. 

The address recounted the grievances of the South, proposed 
measures that the convention of the people of Mississippi should 
adopt to remedy those grievances, and pointed out the necessity of 
the state's obtaining such redress. After reciting the history of the 
aggressions against slavery under the government of the United States, 
the address declared that the bitter warfare against that institution 
would not stop short of its destruction, if it were not stayed by the 
action of the South, and held up the measures of the compromise as 
steps in the consummation of the purpose of the abolitionists. More- 
over, it charged that agitation against slavery rent the country with 
dissentions on that subject and that the aboUtionists, behind the 
constitution as a rampart, committed acts against the rights of prop- 
erty in slaves that would, without the constitution and without the 
Union, be the cause of war. Therefore, it asserted the constitution 
had failed in its object, as declared in the preamble, "to establish 
justice, provide for the common defense, and insure domestic tran- 
quillity;" and urged that it was time "to seek for security in amend- 
ments of its provisions, or in some other mode." 

It then suggested that the convention of the people of the state 
should ask for amendments of the constitution by which each of the 
two great sections of the confederacy should, in the future, be deprived 
of the power of oppressing the other by unequal or unjust taxation, 
whether direct or indirect; by which fugitive slaves should be deliv- 
ered up in the same way that fugitives from justice were and state 

* Letter to Major R. Elward from A. Hutchinson, C. S. Tarpley, and E. Barks- 
dale, the corresponding committee of the Central Southern Rights Association 
of Mississippi, Jackson, Mississippi, December 27, 1850, Mississippi Free Trader, 
January 8, 1851. 

*This committee composed of both Whigs and Democrats, was as follows: J. 
M. Clayton, J. I. Guion, Roger Barton, T. Jones Stewart, J. J. McRae, C. R. Clif- 
ton, C. P. Smith, J. A. Quitman, and J. O. Bell. Ibid., January 8, 185 1. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 185 

authorities should assist in and compel their delivery; and by which 
all further discussion or agitation of the subject of slavery should be 
excluded from the halls of Congress, unless it were carried on with 
a view of extending to slavery the protection given to other descrip- 
tions of property. 

In addition, the address proposed that the convention should ask 
that Congress should extend the Missouri comproinise line to the 
Pacific ocean and, to that end, obtain the consent of California to 
that line's constituting her southern boundary; and that the right of 
the people of the slaveholding states to carry their slaves to all terri- 
tory south of that line should be acknowledged and secured. 

It declared that, if redress like this could be obtained, the whole 
difficulty between the sections would be ended by means which could 
not meet objection from any quarter. It, also, asserted that it was 
in the power of the South to secure such redress, that all that was 
needed was for the Southern states to satisfy the North that they 
were determined to maintam their rights at aU hazards, and that the 
remaining patriotism of the North, and much more, its interest in 
preserving its commerce with the South, would induce it to recognize 
and guarantee the equal and just rights of the Southern states, 
"both as poUtical communities, havmg distinct interests, and as 
states united under the compact of the constitution." At all events, 
the address declared, thus far Mississippi was bound to go and take 
her stand, and thus far her sister states of the South might go with 
her and stand by her side; and, if the North should act in a spirit of 
good faith and justice by redressing the grievances of the South, 
a great result would be accomplished, peace and fraternal kindness 
restored, and a guarantee afforded of the perpetuity of the Union. 

But the address continued: 

If the North shall refuse to accede to our just demands, then will come up for 
decision the question whether we shaU submit to grievous wrongs, and take the 
position of inferiority assigned to us in the Union, or look to ourselves for the pro- 
tection of our rights and our institutions out if it. The evidence of hostility on 
their part will be complete— the cup of Submission on ours will be full. Non- 
action, beyond that point, will be unconditional submission. If we would remain 
a free people, we must resort to such remedies as under existing circumstances, 
should then promise to be most effectual. 

The address then advanced arguments in proof of the doctrine of 
state sovereignty and of the right of secession. It declared that the 



1 86 Mississippi Historical Society. 

federal Union was formed of equal, independent sovereignties and 
rested on the consent of the parties to the compact; that the consti- 
tution was the bond of union and that each state had the right to 
judge, in the last report, of infractions of it; that, as each state ac- 
ceded to the constitution and became a member of the Union volun- 
tarily, each one might in the exercise of its high sovereign right, 
withdraw from the Union, without any violation of obligation to 
those that remained, and that if justice and good faith governed their 
intercourse, there could be no occasion for hostile collision. This, 
it asserted, was the doctrine of the fathers of the constitution. More- 
over, several of the states at the time of the adoption of the consti- 
tution had expressly claimed the right to resume the power granted 
under the constitution and, hence, it followed that the right to se- 
cede belonged to every member of the Union and that it was a right 
never given up. 

But the expediency of the exercise of that right, the writers of the 
address declared, was quite a different question. They asserted 
that they were by no means prepared to recommend to the people 
of Mississippi, at that time, to take such a step in advance of the 
other Southern states, even should their complaints go unheeded; 
but that, as a measure of precaution, it would become the duty of 
the convention to act with reference to the consequences of a refusal, 
on the part of the government of the United States, to redress those 
grievances, and to afford guarantees for the future protection and 
safety of the rights of the South, and, to that end, to provide for the 
appointment of delegates to meet those from the other Southern states 
in convention for the purpose of considering the grievances of their 
section and divising modes and measures of redress to be submitted 
to the people of the states represented in the convention for their 
final adoption or rejection. 

The writers of the address further asserted: 

If that convention, with all the lights which may be thrown upon this subject 
by the events of the past as well as those which may have transpired in the inter- 
val, shall then come to the solemn conclusion that the safety of the South, the exis- 
tence of their institutions and the honor of their people can only be preserved by 
a secession from the Union and the formation of a Southern confederacy, and 
should recommend that course, we know no power but that of the people in these 
States, who would have a right to question the justice or propriety of adopting the 
recommendation . 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 187 

In conclusion, the address set forth the necessity of Southerners 
insisting on the measures that it had proposed. They could not 
get rid of slavery if they would, it urged; and, since there could be 
no equality of the races, the negroes must live among them either 
as their slaves or as their masters. The past success of the aboli- 
tionists, it warned the people of the South, only made them more 
keen for futvu^e victories and if they were not stayed they would 
finally attack the institution of slavery in the states. But the address 
declared that, if the people of the whole South would unite, the crisis 
would be passed and the country might be saved.^ 

Thus, before the close of 1850, two parties had been formed in Mis- 
sissippi on the issue of submission or resistance to the compromise 
and had announced the platforms on which they proposed to fight 
out the question as to the action the state should take in regard to 
that measure. The Union party was composed of the great body of 
the Whigs and, also, of some Democrats who favored acquiescence 
in the compromise; while the Southern Rights party was made up of 
a large proportion of the Democratic party and a small munber of 
state rights Whigs. The first had the advantage of the incomparable 
partisan leadership of Foote and the more dignified, if less effective, 
guidance of the Whig leaders of the state, and of the support of the 
federal administration, with the full power of the federal patronage, 
and the Union party that was forming in Congress and the Southern 
states. To offset these advantages, the other party had, as leaders, 
the public men of the state whom the rank and file of the voters had 
grown accustomed to follow, and, through these leaders, control over 
the machinery of the state government and, what was of more impor- 
tance, of the party that had so long dommated the state and with 
which the great majority of its voters were thoroughly identified. 

But, unfortunately for the Southern Rights party, its success in 
this struggle did not depend on the people of Mississippi alone. For, 
although a majority of the people of the state were opposed to the 
compromise, they beUeved that the success of any measure of resis- 
tance to it depended on the cooperation of the Southern states. 
Moreover, the Southern Rights party, reflecting these views, had 



6 Address of the Central Southern Rights Association, Jackson, December 10, 
1850. Mississippi Free Trader, January 8, 1851. 



i88 Mississippi Historical Society. 

declared against separate state action, if its demands were not 
granted, and in favor of cooperation with the other Southern states 
in devising and enforcing measures of redress. Therefore, to under- 
stand the struggle in Mississippi over the policy the state should 
adopt in regard to the compromise and the changes in the position 
of the Southern Rights party during its course, it is necessary to 
follow the progress of the movement in favor of resisting the com- 
promise in the other Southern states. 

When the compromise measures were passed by Congress, it was 
generally understood that, although some of the senators and repre- 
sentatives who had most strenuously opposed them to the very end 
were from the border states, those states would acquiesce in the 
measure provided they were not forced into a policy of opposition by 
the action of the cotton states. Therefore, those in favor of resistance 
placed their hopes in the action of the latter, particularly South 
Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi; and the real contest 
over the policy the South should adopt with respect to the com- 
promise was fought out in those states. 

Soon after the passage by Congress of the bills embodying that 
measure, a movement in favor of resistance was under way in each 
of these four states. In response to it. Governor Quitman, of Mis- 
sissippi, as has been seen, convened the legislature of his state for the 
purpose of calling a convention of the people of Mississippi. The 
governor of Georgia, also, issued a proclamation calling a convention 
of that state to meet December lo, 1850,^ and Governor Seabrook, 
of South Carolina, gave assurance that his state was ready to support 
the others in a determined resistance to the compromise, without 
regard to the consequences.^ But the governor of Alabama, although 
great pressure was brought to bear upon him,* did not deem it wise 
to summon an extra session of the legislature to call a convention of 
the state "to redress Federal outrage and oppression." 

In fact in the last named state, those who opposed the compromise 
made a losing fight from the beginning against the submission to 
that measure. For both the senators, William R. King and Jere- 

' National Era, October 3, 1850. 

' Letters of Governor Seabrook, of South Carolina, to Governor Quitman, 
September 20, 1850, and October 23, 1850, Claiborne, Life and Correspondence 
of John A. Qiiilman, II., 36-38. 

* National Era, October 3, 1850. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hear on. 189 

miah Clemens, threw their influence in favor of submission and Henry 
W. Hilliard, in its behalf, matched his eloquence against that of the 
fiery Yancey, the preeminent orator of the secessionists. Moreover 
mass meetings in Montgomery and Linden, the centers of the two 
most populous slave counties in the state, declared in favor of acqui- 
escing in the compromise and it soon became evident that not only 
the Whigs but also a large percentage of the Democrats in the state 
were opposed to resisting that measure.^ 

The greatest interest, however, was centered in the campaign in 
Georgia for the election of delegates to the state convention. For 
in that election the people of a Southern state had their first oppor- 
tunity of expressing their sovereign will in regard to the compromise 
and, furthermore, many understood that the decision of Georgia 
would largely determine the success of the plans for cooperative action 
against the compromise by the Southern states, if not the fate of the 
whole movement in favor of resistance. In this campaign, two par- 
ties were developed in Georgia, as in Mississippi: the Union party, 
in favor of submission to the compromise and composed principally of 
Whigs, and the Southern Rights party, in favor of resistance to that 
measure and made up mostly of Democrats. The state was canvassed 
by both with great zeal, Cobb, Toombs, and Stephens rendering 
effective service to the Union cause. When the returns from the 
election were in, it was found that the Union party had carried the 
state by a large majority and elected all except a small number of 
the delegates to the convention.^" 

The convention that assembled in Milledgeville, December 10, 
1850, being virtually a Union convention, proceeded to set forth, in 
a series of resolutions, principles which had already been enunciated 
as the platform of the Union party in the South^^ and accepted as 
such by the convention that organized the Union party in Mississippi, ^^ 
but which were to become famous and to be accepted by the South 
as the Georgia platform.^^ The convention, in these resolutions, 
declared that while the state of Georgia did not wholly approve of 

' Du Bose, Life a7id Times of William Lowndes Yancey, 251-252; Hodgson, 
Cradle of the Confederacy, 286. 

1" National Era, December 19, 1850. 

" Quotation from the Washington Union, National Era, November 14, 1850. 

" Vicksburg Weekly Whig, November 27, 1850. 

12 Cluskey, Political Text-Book, 536-537, contains a part of the report and all 
the resolutions adopted by this convention. 



ipo Mississippi Historical Society. 

the measures of the compromise, it would abide by it as a permanent 
adjustment of the sectional controversy. But it added: 

That the state of Georgia, in the judgment of this convention, will and ought 
to resist, even (as a last resort) to the disruption of evety tie which binds her to 
the Union, any future act of Congress abolishing slavery in the District of Colum- 
bia, without the consent and petition of the slaveholders thereof; or any act abol- 
ishing slavery in places within the slaveholding states, purchased by the United 
States for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, navy-yards, and 
like purposes; or any act suppressing the slave trade between slaveholding States; 
or any refusal to admit as a State any Territory applying, because of the existence 
of slavery therein, or any act prohibiting the introduction of slaves into the Terri- 
tories of Utah and New Mexico; or any act repealing or materially modifying the 
law now in force for the recovering of fugitive slaves." 

The members of the convention realizing the strength of the oppo- 
sition to the compromise in Georgia and the other Southern states, 
understood the necessity of united action to put down the movement 
in the South in favor of resistance to it. Therefore, "The friends 
of the Union" in the convention, declaring that the exigency of pub- 
lic affairs demanded that patriots of all parties should unite for the 
preservation of their rights and of the Union of the states and that 
all party issues should be held in subordination to the fundamental 
questions dividing the country, organized themselves into the Con- 
stitutional Union party on the basis of the Georgia platform, pledged 
themselves to use all proper means for the maintenance and success of 
its principles throughout the state and the Union, and recommended 
a national convention to be held in Washington, on the twenty- 
second of February, to devise means for securing their supremacy 
throughout the extent of the Republic.^^ 

Members of Congress, who had helped to carry through the com- 
promise, were also alarmed at the unwillingness to accept that meas- 
ure manifested in both sections and, equally with the members of 
the Georgia convention, convinced of the necessity of united action 
on the part of the North and the South in opposition to the move- 



" Johnston and Browne, Life of A. H. Stephens, 259. 

These resolutions were adopted by a vote of 237 to 19. Cluskey, Polilical 
Text-Book, 536. 

There is an essential difference between these resolutions and the enumeration 
of "intolerable oppressions" by the meeting in Mississippi that formed the Union 
party. In regard to the territories, the former declared that Georgia would and 
ought to resist any act prohibiting the introduction of slaves into the territories 
of Utah and New Mexico; while the latter declared that the passage of any law 
by Congress prohibiting slavery in any of the territories would justify resistance. 

" National Era, January 9, 1851. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 191 

ment in favor of resistance. Accordingly, about forty members of 
Congress, for the most part Southern Whigs,^^ signed a pledge to 
resist all attempts to repeal or alter the compromise acts and, not to 
support for the oflSce of president, vice-president, senator, represen- 
tative in Congress, or member of a state legislature any man who 
was not known to be opposed to disturbing the settlement effected 
by those acts.^^ 

Notwithstanding the alarm of those in favor of submission to the 
compromise over the strength of sentiment in the South in oppo- 
sition to that measure, the outlook in South Carolina alone furnished 
encouragement to the party of resistance in Mississippi. But the 
leaders of that state took the position that resistance to the compro- 
mise should be made by cooperative action on the part of the South- 
ern states and that it would be the wiser poUcy for South Carolina 
not to take the lead in any such action.^® Hence, they allowed pub- 
lic sentiment in the state to crystalize in a desire to exhaust the scheme 
of joint action before favoring the taking of an independent step by 
South Carolina and in the behef that the cause would receive a fatal 
blow if South Carolina should attempt to take the lead. 

To carry out their design, the public men of South Carolina sought 
to induce the Nashville convention, the legislature of Mississippi, 
or the Georgia convention to call a Southern congress, composed of 
delegates elected by state conventions, with power to make recom- 
mendations to the state conventions, or better, with full authority 
from the states represented to withdraw those states from the Union, 
or to submit "to the supreme authorities of the country" proposi- 
tions for a new bargain between the states, by which equality among 
the members of the confederacy and protection of Southern property 
should be put beyond the possibility of hazard in the future.^' 

16 Cobb was the only Democrat in the House who signed this pledge and Foote, 
Rusk, Clemens, and Gwin the only ones in the Senate. On February 6 the 
National Era asserted there were but two Northern Whigs, besides the eight bilver- 
Grays of New York, then on the list, Eliot, of Boston, and Cooper of Pennsyl- 
vania. National Era, February 6, 1851. 

I'' 76 jrf., January 30, 185 1. o u o 

18 Letter from R. W. Barnwell to Quitman, Washington, September 19, 1850, 
Claiborne Papers, State Archives, Jackson, Mississippi; Letter from Governor 
Seabrook to Governor Quitman, Pendleton, South Carolina, September 20, 1850, 
C\a.ihome, Life and Correspondence of John A. Qmtmari, II, z6. 

19 Letter from Governor Seabrook, of South Carolina, to Governor Quitman 
Charleston, October 23, 1850, Claiborne, Life and Correspondence of John A. Qutt- 
man, II, 37-38. 



192 Mississippi Historical Society. 

However, only the Nashville convention carried out even in part 
the wishes of the South Carolina leaders. As has been seen, it rec- 
ommended the holding of a convention of the slaveholding states 
with the full power and authority entrusted to it desired by the South 
Carolina leaders; but it left the time and place of such a meeting to 
be designated by the states desiring to be represented.^" The legisla- 
ture of Mississippi referred all action on the subject to the convention 
of the state to assemble in November of the following year; while 
the Georgia convention declared against resistance of any kind to 
the compromise measures. 

Disappointed in their desire that some other state should take 
the lead in the movement for the Southern congress, and seeing the 
time in which there was any hope for success in such a movement 
slipping away, and, also, encouraged by the assurance of Governor 
Quitman that they might rely on the cooperation of Mississippi, the 
South Carolina leaders in the movement against the compromise, at 
length decided that South Carolina should name the time and the place 
for the meeting of the Southern Congress recommended by the Nash- 
ville convention. Though there was opposition to the state's break- 
ing with her policy of not taking the lead, in December, 1850, bills 
were passed through the legislature, with only a few opposing votes 
in each house, recommending the Southern states to meet in Congress 
at Montgomery, January 2, 1852, and providing for a convention of 
the people of the state to assemble the fourth Monday of February, 
1852, to consider the acts of the Southern congress.^^ The election 
of the delegates to the state convention was ordered on the second 
Monday in February, 185 1, and the day following, and the election 
of the delegates to the congress on the second Monday in October, 
1851, and the day following.^^ i^ addition $350,000 for arming the 
state was put at the disposal of the governor.^^ 

Thus, at the beginning of the campaign in Mississippi over the 
selection of delegates to the convention of the state, there were two 



" Cluskey, Political Text-Book, 535. 

^^ Letter from Governor Seabrook to Governor Quitman, Columbia, December 
14, 1850, Claiborne, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, II, 39~40- 

^ National Intelligencer, January 4, 1851. 

^ Letter from Governor Seabrook to Governor Quitman, December 14, 1850, 
Claiborne, Life and Correspondence of John A . Quitman, II, 39-40. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hear on. 193 

courses open to the people of the state: one was to respond to the 
call of South Carolina and meet her in a Southern convention for the 
purpose of obtaining guarantees for the protection of their rights in 
the Union or of seceding from it; the other was to follow the lead of 
Georgia and agree to acquiesce in the compromise as a permanent 
adjustment of the controversy between the two sections. The South- 
em Rights party threw itself into the campaign in favor of the former 
policy; while the Union party supported the latter. 

Each of these parties sought to prove that it stood on the platform 
of the October convention of 1849 ^^^ that the other had abandoned 
the principles upon which the people of the state had been united. 
The Unionists charged that the Southern Rights party by raising 
new issues had divided the state and produced the want of unanimity 
in it so deeply deplored by all its true friends. But the main charge 
the Union party brought against their opponents and urged most 
persistently was the one that Foote had, with unerring judgment, 
seized upon in his first speech in Mississippi in favor of the compro- 
mise, namely, that the success of the Southern Rights party would 
mean a disruption of the Union. Sweeping aside all declarations made 
by the Southern Rights party against separate state secession and in 
favor of united action on the part of the Southern states, they declared: 

All must act with the party who demand amendments to the Constitution, and 
a division of California, and if they are refused, Secession; or they must act with 
the Union men, who oppose that platform. Neither wise man nor fool can expect 
these demands will succeed. The issue is therefore between secession and acqui- 
escence. Let us range ourselves then where we can be seen; for the Constitu- 
tion as it is and for the adjustment, or for an amendment and disimion.^ 

The leaders of the Southern Rights party sought to parry this 
charge by proving that they were the true Union party and that the 
"Unionists" were the real "disunionists."^^ They declared that 
the Union party enumerated a series of acts of Congress that would 
amount to intolerable oppressions and justify a resort to measures 
of resistance; but made no efforts to secure the country against the 
passage of such acts. It was asserted: 

^Columbus Democrat, January 18, 1851; Natchez Semi-weekly Courier, January 
28, 1851. 

^Speech of Jefferson Davis in Jackson, June 16, 1851, before the meeting of 
the Democratic Southern Rights party of the state. Mississippi Free Trader, 
June 21, 1851. 



IQ4 Mississippi Historical Society. 

Now the guarantees we demand are that these " intolerable oppressions' ' which 
"would justify a resort to measures of resistance" shall not occur. The conclu- 
sion is as clear as that two and two make four, if the guarantees are not given, 
and the "intolerable oppression" occurs,— to-wit, "the repeal of the Fugitive 
Slave Law or the refusal of the General Government to enforce it" — disunion 
will stalk abroad in the land. The submissionists, or Union men par excellence, 
by a " resort to measures of resistance' ' must inevitably occasion a dissolution of 
the Union; unless, as we are more than half inchned to believe, their "measures 
of resistance" will consist in "marching up the hill and very bravely marching 
down again."^ 

In addition, it was urged, that the formation of a Union party in 
the South in that crisis should be discountenanced by every patriot 
because it would operate as an encouragement to the enemies of South- 
ern institutions. For if the Union party should triumph, the ene- 
mies of Southern institutions would claim that their predictions had 
been verified and that the love of the Union was stronger in the 
people of the South than their fancied love of their rights of property; 
and, as their plans were but half completed, they would be stimu- 
lated to make still further aggressions upon the rights of the South. 
Therefore, the inevitable result of the triumph of the Union party 
would be the consolidation of the government and the destruction 
of the cherished institutions of the South. Moreover, even if such 
a party were unsuccessful, it would dampen the ardor of the South 
and stay the power that, if left untrammeled, would carve out for 
the section the security and the integrity of its rights.^^ 

But in spite of the efforts of the leaders of the Southern Rights 
party to repel the charge of being disunionists and to convince the 
people of Mississippi that a dissolution of the Union or, what was 
to them much more serious, consolidation of the government and 
the destruction of slavery would result from the policy of the Union 
party, public sentiment in the state began, very early in 1851, to be 
affected both by the fear that resistance to the compromise might 
result in disunion and by the failure of the movement in the other 
states for the adoption of a policy of resistance, and to waver in its 
support of that policy. Evidence of this is found in two Democratic 
newspapers in different parts of the state. The Monroe Democrat, 
on January 29, 1851, and the Woodville Republican, on February 4, 

*« Fazoo Z>ew»ocro/, April 31, 1 85 1. 

" Resolutions submitted by Hon. Jacob Thompson to the States Rights meeting 
in Lafayette county, March' 31, 1851, and his speech upon it. The Constitution, 
(Oxford, Mississippi), April 5, 1851. 



Mississippi and the Compromsie of 1850 — Hearon. 195 

gave up resistance to the compromise. The editor of the Monroe 
Democrat explained that he withdrew from the support of the state 
rights cause because he had become convinced that its leaders were 
working for a dissolution of the Union.^^ The Woodville Republican, 
on its part, declared that although the late adjustment law met 
its unequivocal disapproval, for the sake of peace, harmony, and 
union, it was willing "in common with the mass of the Southern 
people' ' to acquiesce in that measure.^^ 

But of far more importance as to the effect on the movement in 
Mississippi in behalf of resistance to the compromise of the failure 
of that movement in the other states is an address issued from Wash- 
ington, February 13, 1851, by Jacob Thompson, renouncing all hope 
of successful resistance to the compromise. In it he declared: 

Thus divided upon what we can not do and what we will not do, I despair. All 
hope of resistance to the late measure which passed Congress, to any satisfactory 
end, is gone. I believe there is patriotism, justice, and love of the Union still existing 
m the free States to an extent sufficient to enable the South to obtain whatever, 
with a united voice, she might demand as necessary for her security and protec- 
tion for the future. But if the South is divided in her requests or demands, nothing 
of course, will be obtained. It is vain and futile to expect it.^° 

The failure in the Southern states of the movement to resist the 
compromise presented grave difficulties to the Southern Rights party 
in Mississippi. For it had been organized on the basis of resistance 
to the compromise by the united action of the South and when it 
began to grow evident that that policy had failed, it became necessaiy 
for the leaders of the Southern Rights party to agree on a new basis 
on which to maintain that organization. Differences of opinion m 
the party on that subject immediately, appeared ranging all the way 
from submission to the compromise to separate state secession in 
resistance to it. 

Jacob Thompson, in his address issued February 13, took a de- 
cided position in opposition to the latter policy and earnestly advised 
the people of Mississippi against acting alone. Every step Mis- 
sissippi had taken, he declared, had been based upon the idea that 

" Letter of J. F. M. CaldweU, editor of the Monroe Democrat, to the Public, 
January 29, 1851. The Independent, (Aberdeen), February i, 1851. 

2» Quotation from the Woodville Republican in the Natchez Courier, J^ebruary 

'so Address of the Honorable Jacob Thompson written in Washington, February 
13, 1851, Mississippi Free Trader, March 27, 1851. 



196 Mississippi Historical Society. 

she could not and would not act single-handed and he urged her not 
to change her position or to pledge herself to the attempt to secede. 
He said: 

I regard secession for Mississippi alone, hemmed in and compassed about as 
she is, as impracticable. And to make the attempt will injure the cause which we 
seek to maintain.^' 

Quitman, on the other hand, favored separate state action rather 
than submission to the compromise. In a letter to Colonel John S. 
Preston, of South Carolina, March 29, 1851, he set forth at length 
his views concerning public sentiment in Mississippi and the other 
Southern states at that time, with respect to the compromise, the 
measures that would be adopted by Mississippi in resistance to it, 
and the course that South Carolina should pursue in view of the sit- 
uation in the other Southern states. 

Public sentiment in the state, Quitman wrote, was unquestionably 
hostile to the so-called compromise measures of Congress, and daily 
becoming more so; but there was not sufficient evidence to prove 
that the feeling had settled down into any definite plan of action. 
He believed, however, that an increasing majority regarded the ex- 
isting state of things as inconsistent with the safety of the Southern 
states, were not disposed to acquiesce in its continuance, and were 
ready to adopt some practicable mode of resistance. Therefore, he 
had no fears for the success of the Southern Rights party in the con- 
test for the convention, if the members of Congress, state officers, 
and other prominent friends of Southern rights acted in concert in 
support of some efficient measure of resistance. 

He gave it as his opinion that some such plan as the one proposed 
in the address of the Central Southern Rights Association would be 
adopted by the convention. But he revealed the essential difference 
in the views and aims of those who advocated it by assertmg: 

There are many of us who believe, indeed are well assured, that neither the ma- 
jority in Congress nor the non-slaveholding states will assent to either of these 
just propositions, unless demanded by the Southern States with a unanimity not 
to be expected; but still we think the propositions are due to our confederates be- 
fore we part with them, and again, there are some among us who still have hopes 
that the people of the North, when deliberately and solemnly appealed to with 
the alternative of separation distinctly made, wiU yield to our demands. 



'^ Address of the Hon. Jacob Thompson written in Washington, February 13, 
1851, Mississippi Free Trader, March 27, 1851. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hear on. 197 

From the state of public sentiment in Mississippi, Quitman asserted, 
there was but a step to that which prevailed in South Carolina; but 
that step, the last in anticipation of unconditional separation, would 
be deliberated on long and cautiously. The slightest exciting cause, 
however, would carry the state onward; yet, without it, public senti- 
ment, alarmed by the imaginary evils of an unknown future, might 
recoil and pause a long time in doubt and uncertainty. He believed, 
then, from the indications at that time, that Mississippi, if her prop- 
ositions were not promptly acceded to, would invite her neighboring 
sister states to form with her a new confederacy; but that she might, 
from her weakness and the inconvenience of her position, withhold 
the final act until one of her immediate neighbors should be willing 
to join her; and that she would not, probably even if redress and 
guarantees were absolutely refused, venture to secede alone, for many 
of her boldest and staunchest Southern Rights men would not advise 
separate secession under any circumstances, although a few, inclu- 
ding himself, thought that there were evils in the future even greater 
than separate secession. 

As to cooperative action on the part of the Southern states, he had 
no hope, at that time, that a majority of the slaveholding states 
would unite in any efifective measures for curing the evils complained 
of, and did not look beyond the cotton states for united action. In- 
deed he feared that the frontier states would never abandon the Union, 
however great its oppressions, unless rudely driven from it by the North, 
or forced to chose between a Southern and a Northern confederacy. 
Neither did he think there was a prospect of the cotton states authori- 
tatively taking jomt action at that time. While it was true, that in 
some of those states, particularly Alabama, Florida, and Louisiana, 
much discontent with the action of Congress prevailed, and the 
spirit of resistance was extending itself among the people; yet nowhere, 
except in South Carolina and Mississippi, was it proposed to act 
authoritatively on those questions. Therefore, to those states alone, 
could they look for any efficient action. The latter was not yet 
fully prepared for final action; it had less capital, was younger and 
weaker than the former, and had no seaport. The former should, 
then, take the lead, and fearlessly and confidently act for herself 
and Mississippi would, Quitman felt assured, take position by her 
side, and soon all the adjoining states would follow her example. 



198 Mississippi Historical Society. 

In conclusion, he urged the separate secession of South Carolina 
in a way that showed how completely he had lost confidence in co- 
operative action and with arguments that proved to be sound under 
the conditions of the next great crisis over slavery, at least. He wrote ; 

If, therefore, the people of South Carolina have made up their minds to with- 
draw from the Union at aU events, whether joined by other states or not, my ad- 
vice would be to do so without waiting for the action of any other state, as I be- 
lieve there would be more probability of favorable action on the part of other 
Southern States after her secession than before. So long as the several aggrieved 
states wait for one another, their action will be over-cautious and timid. Great 
political movements, to be successful, must be bold, and must present practical 
and simple issues. There is, therefore, in my opinion, greater probability of the 
dissatisfied states uniting with a seceding state than of their union for the purpose 
of secession. The secession of a Southern state would startle the whole South, 
and force the other states to meet the issue plainly; it would present practical 
issues and exhibit everywhere a wider-spread discontent than politicians have 
imagined. In less than two years aU the states south of you would unite their 
destiny to yours. Should the federal government attempt to employ force, an 
active and cordial union of the whole South would be instantly effected, and a 
complete Southern confederacy organized. All these results are problems which 
the future alone can solve .^- 

The South Carolina leaders were convinced, with Quitman, that 
they had failed in their efforts to unite the Southern states in a move- 
ment to resist the compromised^ Therefore, many of the most deter- 
mined opponents of that measure turned to separate state action. 
In the elections in February for the state convention, the extremists 
had won an overwhelming victory. Of the 167 delegates chosen, 
the Charleston Mercury declared that it was safe to say that 127 were 
in favor of separate secession on the part of South Carolina.^* But 
this convention was elected for the purpose of receiving and act- 
ing upon the recommendations that might be made by the Southern 
convention called to meet in January, 1852, and was, therefore, not 
to meet for more than a year. Consequently, those in favor of sep- 
arate secession initiated a movement in favor of an earlier meeting 
of that body for the purpose of adopting a plan of separate state 



^'^ Letter of Quitman to Colonel John S. Preston, of South Carolina, Monmouth, 
March 29, 1851, Claiborne, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, II, 123- 
127. 

53 They were confirmed in this belief by the action of the Virginia legislature. 
That body passed with great unanimity, resolutions expressing kind feelings for 
South Carolina, but declaring in favor of abiding by the compromise measures, 
pronouncing against secession, and announcing the purpose of Virginia to send 
no delegates to the Southern congress. National Era, April 3, 1851. 

^*New York Semi-weekly Tribune, February 26, 1851. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 199 

action on the part of South Carolina in resistance to the compromise, 
by calling a convention of delegates from the State Rights associa- 
tions of South Carolina to meet in Charleston, May 5, 185 1. 

Although strenuous opposition was made to this movement by 
Senator Barnwell, Langdon Cheves, and others who had been fore- 
most in support of cooperative action on the part of the South against 
the compromise, Robert Barnwell Rhett carried the convention 
with him. The result was that body adopted a series of resolutions 
in which they asserted the right of secession and declared that it was 
necessary for South Carolina to relieve herself from the wrongs and 
aggressions that had been perpetrated against her by the federal 
government with or without the cooperation of the other Southern 
states and that they looked with hope and confidence to the conven- 
tion of the people to exert the sovereign power of the state in defense 
of its rights at the earhest practicable period, and to the legislature 
to adopt the most speedy and effectual measures towards that end.^ 

In the campaign that followed in South Carolina, those who favored 
cooperative action of the Southern states in resistance to the com- 
promise, but were opposed to separate secession on the part of South 
Carolina united with the members of the Union party in the state 
and, under the guidance of such leaders as Barnwell, Butler, Orr, 
Perry, and Poinsett, ably opposed those in favor of separate state 
action, led by Rhett, Maxy Gregg, Ex-governor Seabrook, and Gov- 
ernor Means. But even these leaders of the party of separate se- 
cession counted on other Southern states coming to the support of 
South Carolina when once it had committed itself to the policy of 
secession, and recognized that the people of South Carolina would be 
influenced in the adoption of that policy by the attitude of the other 
states.^^ 

But, at that time, as Quitman wrote to Governor Means, of South 
Carolina, every other Southern state, except Mississippi, had bowed 
her neck to the yoke or silently submitted and nowhere but in that 
state had any authoritative step been taken to meet South Carolina 



^ National Era, May 15, 1851. 

36 Letter of Colonel Maxy Gregg to Quitman, May 9, 1851, Claiborne, Life 
and Correspondence of John A.Quitman, II, 132-133; Letter of Colonel Maxy Gregg 
to Quitman, May 15, 1851, Ibid., 134-13S; Letter of Whitemarsh B. Seabrook to 
Quitman, Jime 9, 1851, Ibid., 139-141; Letter of Whitemarsh B. Seabrook to Quit- 
man, July IS, 1851, Ibid., 141-143. 



200 Mississippi Historical Society. 

in a Southern congress.^^ So to Mississippi the leaders of the seces- 
sion party in South Carolina, urged on in their course by the advice 
of Quitman and encouraged by his assurances of the public sentiment 
in Mississippi, turned for support.^* How far Quitman was right 
in his belief that his state would support South Carolina in her policy 
of resistance was to be determined by the results of the elections in 
Mississippi. 

The views of Quitman were, however, important. For, although, 
at that time, he was a private citizen, his popularity had been greatly 
increased by the circumstances that had led to his resignation as 
governor to stand trial before a federal court under an indictment 
charging him with having violated the neutrality laws of the United 
States;^' and, as a consequence of what was regarded by many as 
his persecution by the federal government because he was "the re- 
sistance chief of a resistance state," he was very generally regarded 
as the candidate his party would place in nomination for governor in 
the elections for state oflScers that were to be held in September, 185 1. 
Therefore, his position received much attention in the campaign that 
was being waged over the course of the state toward the compromise.^" 

'' Letter from General Quitman to Governor Means, of South Carolina, Mon- 
mouth, May 25, 1851. Claiborne, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, 

11, 135- 

^* Letters of Whitemarsh B. Seabrook to General Quitman, June 9, and July 15, 
1851, Ibid., II, 139-143. 

" Quitman had been interested in the liberation of Cuba and in June, 1850, the 
grand jury of the United States Circuit Court in New Orleans had returned indictments 
against him, John Henderson, of Texas, and others for "setting on foot, and fur- 
nishing the means for a military expedition against the island of Cuba." Al- 
though Quitman and his advisers denied the power of the United States courts 
to order the arrest of the chief magistrate of a state until he had been first removed 
from ofSce, and some of his friends urged him to resist arrest and thus precipitate 
a collision between the federal and the state authorities, which would, in its sequel, 
involve the other Southern states, Quitman wisely decided not to confuse the ques- 
tions at issue between the South and the federal government by the question 
of his arrest, and resigned the office of governor and reported to New Orleans 
for trial. The trial of General Henderson resulting in a mistrial, the other cases, 
including Quitman's, were dismissed. The result of the whole affair was to increase 
the popularity of Quitman and the bitterness of feeling in the state towards the 
federal government. Ibid., II, 53-79. 

^^ Foote made it one of the main points in his attack on the Southern Rights 
party. He openly stated, in a public speech in Jackson, that Quitman, in a pri- 
vate conference with him, in Vicksburg, during the preceding winter, had told 
him that he was in favor of unconditional secession; that he was a disunionist per 
se\ and that he believed that secession was the only remedy for past aggressions 
and would recommend direct and prompt secession in his special message to the 
legislature. Foote insisted, furthermore, that Quitman so interpreted his message 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 201 

The leaders of the Union party were quick to perceive the advan- 
tage of having Quitman, the most extreme and uncompromising of 
the states' rights leaders, as the candidate of their opponents for 
governor and also the effective campaign that Foote, as their candi- 
date, could make against him. The Natchez Courier asserted: 

If Gen. Quitman runs, as the embodiment of the principles of secessionism, 
there is evident propriety that Gen. Foote should run as the exponent of the Union 

party With these two candidates there could be no mistaking 

the issue In Quitman's person, the people would decide upon the 

propriety of his calling the Legislature; upon his message; upon the Convention 
bill; upon the demands made for amending the United States Constitution, and 
upon the Executive recommendation of peaceable secession. In Gen. Foote's per- 
son, they would pass upon the policy of acquiescence in the compromise as an ad- 
justment, as long as it was fairly acquiesced in; upon the sufficiency of the pres- 
ent Constitution; upon the propriety of contending for our constitutional rights 
in the Union, rather than struggling for existence out of it, and upon the wisdom 
and fairness of censuring Gen. Foote for his zeal displayed for the American Union.*^ 

The Union party, as a whole, agreed with the Natchez Courier as 
to the standard bearer it should name for the approaching elections; 
and, as it had firmly taken its stand on the platform on which the 
party had been organized, the proceedings of the Union state con- 
vention held, in Jackson, on the first Monday in May, for the purpose 
of nominating candidates for state offices, were marked by great 
unanimity. Although the convention was made up, for the most 
part, of Whigs,''^ the nominations were equally divided between the 
two old parties, Foote, of course, being nominated for governor. 
The resolutions of the mass meeting held in Jackson, November 18, 
1850, were unanimously adopted as a platform by the convention 
and the organization of Union associations in every county of the 
state was recommended.^^ 

and spurned any other construction of it. Letter from J. McDonald to Quitman, 
Jackson, April 3, 1851, Claiborne Papers, State Archives, Jackson, Mississippi. 

*' Quoted from the Natchez Courier in the Mississippi Free Trader, April 7, 1851. 

**The Mississippian declared that "the submission Whig State convention" 
was made up of the same old Whig party with the exception of a few Democrats 
who had gone over to them. In the entire convention of neariy 200 delegates, 
it did not think there were more than 20 Democrats; and, except from one county, 
there was not a single Democratic member north of Carroll county. Quotation 
from the Mississippian in the Mississippi Free Trader, May 14, 1851. 

'^^ Natchez Weekly Courier, May 13, 1851. 

The committee on resolutions was made up of the following prominent men 
of the party: Gen. Thos. G. Polk, Gen. Jno. D. Freeman, Gen. Patrick Henry, 
Gen. Wm. Clark, Col. Chas. Clark, Col. Wm. H. Johnston, Jas. L. Alcorn, Esq., 
Col. E. Rush Buckner, A. G. Horn, Esq., Col. H. C. Adams, Hon. C. L. Dubuis- 
son, Dr. Wm. D. Lyies, Dr. Edward Pickett, 



202 Mississippi Historical Society. 

But there was no such unanimity in the Democratic State Rights 
party, as the members of the Southern Rights party had begun to 
call their organization, as among their opponents in regard to either 
the platform it should adopt at its convention to be held in June, or 
the nominee for governor. Although many of the leaders of the party 
continued to express their approval of Governor Quitman's message 
to the legislature*^ and to stand upon the platform laid down in the 
address of the committee of the Central Southern Rights Associ- 
ation,*^ yet they realized that the basis of their earlier position had 
been swept from under them by the failure of the resistance movement 
in all the other states except South Carolina. Furthermore, they 
understood the effect on public sentiment in the state of the ac- 
quiescence of the other Southern states in the compromise and of 
the fear that resistance on the part of Mississippi, under the circum- 
stances, would lead to secession; and, for the most part, became con- 
vinced that they could not carry the state on their first platform. 
Therefore, especially after the nomination of Foote by their oppo- 
nents, many began to urge the modification of their earlier position. 

The extent to which some of them thought it necessary to make 
this modification and their reasons for their belief are well set forth 
in a letter to Quitman, dated May 20, 1851.*® The writer stated: 

This cry of Union and disunion has frightened many of the timid but well mean- 
ing Democrats. They have come to a pause, and scarce know what to do. ... A 
convention to form a plan of ultimate disunion can not now be carried. If the issue 
be made approval or disapproval of the adjustment measures, then I am confident 
the non-contents have the majority — the lowest point short of acquiescence, and 
short of an abandonment of state rights, will be most certain to secure the major- 
ity. Success with a very moderate platform is better than defeat with one based 
upon higher ground. The battle to be fought will be a hard one; every topic will 
be urged, and every argument insisted on that will at all subserve their ends, by 
the Foote men. Disunion per se — secession — a small spice of treason, just enough 
to escape the trator's doom, will be charged upon the State-rights men. All this 
must be repeUed, and must be met by a moderation which, while it does not sur- 
render our rights, adopts that show of remedy which is most in accordance with 
the spirit of the times. Should it be said that the State-rights party has aban- 

** Speech of Jefferson Davis in Jackson, June 16, 1851, Mississippi Free Trader, 
June 21, 1851. 

^ Letter of John J. McRae to S. R. Adams, Enterprise, Mississippi, April 30, 
1851. Ibid., May 17, 1851. 

''* Claiborne, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, II, 1 21-12 2. Clai- 
borne carefully suppresses the name of the writer of this letter and the place from 
which it was written; but he says that the letter was "from one of the ablest and 
purest men of his party, a state-rights man of the strictest sect, and of great influ- 
ence." 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hear on. 203 

doned its position, all that is necessary to reply is to show the changes and ter- 
giversations of their leader. 

Surely they do not desire a monoply on that score. The change in Virginia, 
in Georgia, in Alabama, indeed in all the slave states, fully justifies Mississippi 
in saying she will not take a step which those whose interests are identical will not 
aid her in maintaining. The question is to be looked at practically. What Mis- 
sissippi ought to do, under the altered circiunstances which surround her, is the 
true point, nor what she ought to do if all her sister Southern States sustained her. 
The mere abstract point of right wiU seldom do to stand upon in public affairs. 
The sentiments expressed in your last message, even the more subdued tone of 
what is styled the Clayton address, are too strong for the popular feeling in this 
section. Perhaps the public mind might be brought up to that standard, but I 
do not believe it can. 

What, then can be done? But little I fear. First, it can be declared that our 
state thinks the Compromise Acts were unjust to the South; next that while she 
is unwilling to secede, in the present posture of affairs, she will always be ready 
to go hand in hand with her sisters of the South in repelling aggression. Non- 
intercourse with abolition states, as far as practicable, may also be recommended.^^ 

The movement in South Carolina in favor of separate state action 
also raised the question as to the course the Democratic State Rights 
party would advocate for Mississippi to pursue toward South Caro- 
lina if she should secede alone. Although Quitman, in his correspond- 
ence with the public men of South Carolina who were working to 
bring about the separate secession of that state, reaffirmed the opinions 
that he had expressed earlier to Colonel Preston and his assurance 
that Mississippi would support South CaroUna in her determination 
to regain her equality in the Union or to maintain her independence 
out of it,^^ others in the party did not approve of that policy. They 
declared that, if Mississippi were contiguous to South Carolina, there 
were many grave considerations to induce her to link her destiny 
with that of her sister state; but that, smce Mississippi had no ports 
of entry and all the states contiguous to her would remain in the Union, 
secession on her part would not be wise nor render aid to South Caro- 
lina.''^ 

Even Quitman, at length, was forced to give way, somewhat, be- 
fore the rising tide of public sentiment against disunion. In defend- 
ing himself against the charge of being a disunionist, he gave expres- 
sion to views strangely unlike those he set forth in his letters to the 
South Carolina leaders. He asserted that the Union party had done 



" Claiborne, Life and Correspondence of John A Quittnan, II, 1 21-122. 
" Letter of Quitman to Governor Means, of South Carolina, Monmouth, May 
25, 1851. Ibid., II, 135-136. 
** Yazoo Democrat, June 4, 1850. 



204 Mississippi Historical Society. 

him an injustice in construing his message delivered at the called 
session of the legislature, in 1850, so as to make him a disunionist 
per se and the advocate of immediate and separate secession, when 
the whole tenor of the message contradicted any such idea, for he 
was utterly opposed to Mississippi's taking any steps without con- 
cert with her sister states. He did not hesitate to say that the South 
had suffered suflSciently to justify resistance, but he declared that 
separate and disjointed resistance might ruin all; while joint action 
might, nay would protect the South and save the Union.^" 

When the Democratic State Rights convention met in June, its 
proceedings gave unmistakable proof of the modification of public 
sentiment in Mississippi in regard to resistance to the compromise. 
In framing the platform, the counsels of those who favored " the lowest 
point short of acquiescence and short of an abandonment of state 
rights" prevailed. In the resolutions adopted, the members of the 
convention expressed their condemnation of the compromise measures; 
but in regard to the real issue of the campaign, namely, the measures 
that the state convention should adopt to redress the grievances in- 
flicted on the Southern states by the compromise, they contented 
themselves with asserting that they relied on that convention to esti- 
mate justly the wrongs they had suffered and to indicate the mode 
and measures of redress. Moreover, they sought to shift the issue 
of the campaign to approval or disapproval of the course of the mem- 
bers of Congress from Mississippi with respect to the compromise 
by expressing their condemnation of the Southern senators and rep- 
resentatives who voted for those measures and their approval of the 
course of those who opposed their adoption, and appealing to the 
people of Mississippi for their verdict on that question. 

The convention, also, while maintaining the doctrine, to which 
the leaders of the party were thoroughly committed, of the right of a 
state to secede, tried to protect their party from the charge of seeking 
to promote a dissolution of the Union. They asserted " that no right 
can be more clear or more essential to the protection of the minority 
than the right of the state peaceably to withdraw from the Union, 
without denial or obstruction from any quarter whatever;" but 
declared that the exercise of the right of secession "by the State of 

^" Summary of a speech of Quitman, Yazoo Democrat, June 11, 1851. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 205 

Mississippi, under existing circumstances, would be inexpedient and is 
a proposition which does not meet the approval of this convention."** 

As might be inferred from the failure of the convention to sustain 
the position taken in the address by the committee of the Central 
Southern Rights Association, of which Quitman was a member, much 
less the more extreme position that had been taken by Quitman in his 
message to the legislature, there was strong opposition in the con- 
vention to the nomination of Quitman for governor. The delegates 
feared both that he was too inflexible in his views and also that he 
was too thoroughly identified in the minds of the people with the 
more extreme principles and policies that he had advocated, for the 
party to be able to maintain under his leadership the position that 
the convention assmned. In addition, they understood that the 
efforts of the Union party to make the issue of the campaign union 
or disunion would be furthered by the nomination of Quitman, and 
believed that by the nomination of Jefferson Davis they could make 
the issue the approval by the people of the state of his course in regard 
to the compromise, or Foote's. 

But since the right to the nimination as governor had been generally 
conceded to Quitman because of the circumstances under which he 
had resigned that oflSice, the convention could not risk a division in the 
party by putting him aside without his consent. Therefore, the com- 
mittee on nominations, after consultation with Davis, proposed to 
Quitman that he should withdraw in favor of Davis and accept the 
senatorship that Davis wovdd resign. Quitman, however, refused 
to agree to the proposal and nothing was left for the convention to 
do except to nominate him as the candidate of the Democratic State 
Rights party for governor.*^ 

The campaign that followed was one of the bitterest and most 



" Resolutions of the Democratic State Rights convention, June 16-17, 1851, 
Mississippi Free Trader, June 25, 1851. . cto: 

Jefferson Davis drew the resolution in regard to secession. Letter ot Jelterson 
Davis to James Alfred Pierce, August 22, 1852. Varina Howell Davis, Jefferson 

Davis, I, 471. , ^ ^ T Tj 

62 Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Governmait, I 19; Reu- 
ben Davis, Recollections of Mississippi and Mississippians, 315. Reuben Davis 
was one of the delegates from Monroe county to the convention and says that on 
his way to the meeting of that body he passed no man without asking his preference 
between Jefferson Davis and Quitman and found that three out of four voters 
were for Davis and that many said that, in a choice between Foote and Quitman, 
they would vote for the former. 



2o6 Mississippi Historical Society. 

exciting in the history of the state. In every county, contests were 
carried on between candidates of the two parties for the convention 
and for the legislature; while the candidates for the state offices and the 
more important leaders of the two parties canvassed the state to 
arouse enthusiasm and win support for their respective tickets. 

The Union party, as the members of the Democratic State Rights 
convention feared when they nominated Quitman, succeeded in 
fixing the issue, and the campaign was fought largely on the ques- 
tion of secession. The Unionists, for the most part, denied that a 
state possessed a constitutional right to secede from the Union^ and 
sought to fix on their opponents the charge of working for the se- 
session of Mississippi in opposition to the compromise. The mem- 
bers of the Democratic State Rights party, on the other hand, took 
their stand on the position assumed by the state convention of their 
party in regard to secession. In defending that position, they main- 
tained the right of a state to secede from the Union sometimes as a 
constitutional right and sometunes as a revolutionary right, but, in 
general, without carefully discriminating between the two. They, also, 
insisted that they were neither " submissionists " nor " disunionists " 
and that they regarded both extremes as equally dangerous to the 
rights of the state and the Union.^ 

The posidon of the Democraric State Rights party in the campaign 
following the convention of the party in June, was, perhaps, best set 
forth by Jefferson Davis. In a speech at Fayette, he declared that 
if the secession of Mississippi from the Union presented the only al- 
ternative to social and political degradation, he would say "secession" 
and that he believed that the state of Mississippi would adopt that 
alternative. But he asserted that there were many steps between those 
two open to the state, and proceeded to set forth the course of action 
that it should follow. The people of Mississippi, he declared, should 
organize for the purpose of claiming their rights in the territories. 
Then, they should endeavor to meet the other Southern states to con- 
fer with them as to the best means of repelling aggressions and ob- 
taining security for the future; and, if there was unanimity of feeling, 

" The Independent (Aberdeen, Miss.), April 5, 1851; Natchez Semi-weekly Cou- 
rier, October i, 1851. 

" Letter to the people of Lowndes county, from the State Rights candidates 
for the convention, William L. Harris, George H. Young, and James M. Wynne, 
Columbus, July 3, 1851, Southern Standard, July 5, 1851. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hear on. 207 

a proposition might be adopted requiring certain securities from the 
North. But if the other Southern states did not join Mississippi 
in her eflForts in behalf of Southern rights, then Mississippi should 
stand aloof in readiness so that, when eventually the other states 
should be forced, by future calamities, to join her, she could arrange 
with them for mutual cooperation. 

In addition, Davis urged that Mississippi should meet South Caro- 
lina in the Southern congress, both because she had drawn South 
Carolina into the controversy and, therefore, should not leave her 
to bear the difficulties and encounter the dangers before her alone, 
and also because, by that means, Mississippi might be able to save 
her from taking that last resort to which she had determined to recur, 
although she might be abandoned by all the other states. For, if 
Mississippi met South Carolina, the two states could make propo- 
sitions that one of them could not, and thus South Carolina might 
be prevented from separate state secession. But, Davis added, if 
he were asked to go out of the Union with South Carolina his answer 
would be "no," for unless the people of Mississippi were attached to 
coterminous states in secession, they would be worse ojff than before; 
and, further, Mississippi would be more efifective in the Union than 
out of it, for she would be able to give South Carolina more assist- 
ance and advice. 

Though Davis asserted in this speech the right of a state to secede 
from the Union, he did not maintain it as a constitutional right. It 
was truly said, he declared, that secession was the right of revolution; 
and if the colonies had a right to secede from British rule, although 
that secession was opposed, by the same reason a state had a right 
to secede from the federal government.^^ 

Public interest in this campaign centered largely in the contest 
between Quitman and Foote, who, as the candidates of their respec- 
tive parties for governor, were, also, the officially recognized leaders 
in the struggle over the selection of delegates to the convention. 
Unfortunately for the success of the Democratic State Rights party, 
Quitman agreed to meet Foote in a series of joint debates. For while 
Quitman was neither an orator nor yet a ready and plausible campaign 



^ Summary of a speech delivered by Jefiferson Davis at Fayette, Mississippi 
Free Trader, July 23, 1851. 



2o8 Mississippi Historical Society. 

speaker, Foote was one of the best stump speakers of his day."* 
He was a master of irony and satire and the art of provoking his 
enemy and understood thoroughly how to make an issue and also 
how to evade one. Moreover, the lack of dignity and restraint in 
his style and manner that often made his speeches unsuitable to 
the formality of the senate chamber served to add to his effective- 
ness on the hustings. Pitted against Quitman he appeared at his best. 

In the canvass, Quitman attacked the course of Foote on the com- 
promise and his desertion of the Democratic party ;^' while Foote 
charged Quitman and his party with seeking to promote a dissolu- 
tion of the Union and assailed him and the other leaders of the Demo- 
cratic State Rights party in the most merciless manner.^^ Quit- 
man's friends soon perceived that he was not sustaining himself in 
the debates and urged him to crush Foote with personalities,^^ but 
Quitman could not and would not resort to such tactics. Leaders 
of the Union party, however, were not content with Foote's triumphs 
over Quitman in the joint debates, but urged him, if possible, to drive 
Quitman from the field, by using all his arts of buffoonery to provoke 
him to the highest pitch.^° Accordingly, Foote became so heated and 
personal in his remarks as to tax too heavily the forbearance of his 
adversary, — and the joint debates were closed by a fight between the 
two, on July 18, at Pontotoc.^^ 

This termination of the debates in which Quitman appeared at 
such a disadvantage would have been to the advantage of the Demo- 
cratic State Rights party, if new appointments had been made by 
both candidates. But Foote was allowed to fill all the old appoint- 
ments; while Quitman followed two days behind him. Therefore, 
Foote boasted everywhere, to the large crowds that gathered to 
hear him, that he had driven Quitman from the field.^^ 



^ Reuben Davis describes Quitman's style of speaking as "poor and flat," and 
speaks of Foote as "the best stump speaker then living." Reuben Davis, Re- 
collections of Mississippi and Mississip plans, 317. 

^' Claiborne, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, II, 145-146. 

'* Reuben Davis, Recollections of Mississippi and Mississippians, 317-318. 

''Letter from L. Saunders to Quitman, Natchez, July 13, 1851, Claiborne Pa- 
pers, State Archives, Jackson, Mississippi. 

^"Letter from F. W. Quackenboss to Quitman, Yazoo City, July 23, 1851, 
Claiborne Papers, State Archives, Jackson, Mississippi. 

*' Claiborne, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, II, 146. 

" Reuben Davis, Recollections of Mississippi and Mississippians, 318. 




□ THE COUNTIES IN MISSISSIPPI THAT 
GAVE A MAJORITY IN FAVOR OF THE 
CANDIDATES OF THE UNION PARTY IMTHE 
ELECTION OF OELtGATES TO THE STATE 
CONVENTION IN SEPTEMBER, 1851, 

THE COUNTIES THAT GAVE A MAJORltY 

IN PAVOR OF THE. DEMOCRATIC STATE 

RIGHTS CANDIDATES IN THAT ELECTION. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Eearon. 209 

In the election of delegates to the state convention, on the first 
Monday and the day following in September, 1851, the people of 
Mississippi were, at length, given an opportunity to express their 
will in regard to the policy the state should pursue with respect to 
the compromise and they gave their decision in favor of acquiescing 
in that measure. The candidates of the Union party were elected to 
the convention from all except eighteen counties and together they 
received a majority of more than seven thousand votes in the state.®' 

Although the Union party might well rejoice over its great vic- 
tory, the policy of acquiescing in the compromise had not received 
such emphatic approval from the people of Mississippi as might be 
supposed. For in spite of the exciting campaign, the vote in this 
election fell below that in the election for governor in 1849, the de- 
crease being almost equal to the majority by which the Union ticket 
had carried the state.®^ In fact, the Union party, notwithstanding 
the large majority with which it had carried the election, had not 
received a majority of the votes in the state.®^ 

The failure of a large number of the citizens of Mississippi to vote 
in this election was, no doubt, due to their unwillingness to support 
either of the two courses open to the state at that time. For the 
state and congressional elections beginning in the Southern states 
in the summer of 1851 confirmed the view, which had been already 
generally accepted, that pubUc sentiment in the other Southern states, 
except South Carolina, was in favor of acquiescing in the compro- 
mise;®* and in September, the people of Mississippi understood that 

^3 Mississippi FreeTrader, October 25, 1851; Tribune Almanac, 1852, 44. By 
comparing map i and map 2, it will be seen that not one of the counties that re- 
turned State Rights delegates to the convention was a populous black county pro- 
ducing 10,000 bales of cotton. 

"The official returns for the election for governor in 1849 gives 33,117 votes 
for Quitman and 22,996 for Lea (Senate Journal, 1850, 314-315); and the Tnb- 
une Almanac of 1852 gives 28,402 votes for the Union ticket m the election of 
delegates to the state convention in 1851 and 21,241 for the State Rights ticket, 
with no returns from Coahoma, a county with about 325 votes. {Tribune Al- 
manac, 1852, 44). This makes a total of 56,113 votes cast in the first election and 
of 49,643 in the second. , , . r • -vt 

« The total vote cast for Davis and Foote in the election for governor m No- 
vember, 1851, was 57.717- „ ,T .• » 7- \ 4. 

^New York Semi-weekly Tribune, August 12-15, 1851; National Era, August 

^^'in these elections the people of Alabama, at length, had an opportunity to ex- 
press their sentiment in regard to the compromise and they declared, unequivo- 
cally in favor of submission to that measure on the basis of the Georgia platform 



2IO Mississippi Historical Society. 

only the alternative was left to them of acting with South Carolina 
alone in resistance to the compromise or acquiescing in that measure. 
Many were restrained from voting for the former policy from the be- 
lief that it would accomplish nothing or the fear that it might lead to 
separate state secession and yet were unwilling to declare themselves 
in favor of acquiescing in the compromise. Consequently they re- 
frained from voting at all. 

The result of the election in Mississippi of delegates to the state 
convention, therefore, simply proclaimed that the people of the state, 
in view of the failure of the movement to resist the compromise in 
all the Southern states except South Carolina, were unwilling to 
adopt a policy of resistance to that measure. 

by reelecting Governor Collier, who stood upon that platform, over Shields, who 
presented the issue of unconditional submission, and by returning to Congress a 
Georgia platform Whig or Democrat from every district except the fourth, where 
a triangular contest among a Southern Rights Democrat, a Georgia platform 
Whig, and an unconditional submissionist resulted in the triumph of the latter. 
Du Bosc, Life and Times of William Lowndes Yancey, 261-266; Hodgson, Cfa<W« 
of the Confederacy. 301-314. 



CHAPTER XI. 

THE END OF THE STRUGGLE IN iHSSISSIPPI OVER THE COMPROMISE. 

The Struggle in Mississippi over the compromise of 1850 did not 
end with the election of delegates to the state convention. For the 
issues connected with that measure had also become the basis of the 
contest for the election of state officers and members of Congress, 
which was not to be decided until November. Therefore, the impor- 
tant questions in the contest over the compromise in Mississippi, 
after the election of delegates to the state convention, were the inter- 
pretation that each party would put on the results of that election 
and its effects on the course of each in the rest of the campaign for 
the election of state officers and members of Congress. 

Public meetings of members of the Democratic State Rights party 
in the counties of Madison and Attala, soon after the September 
elections, declared that the people of Mississippi in the selection of 
delegates to the state convention had not decided in favor of sub- 
mission to the adjustment measures, since a large and patriotic por- 
tion of the people of the state had voted against the convention, or 
declined to vote at all, under the impression, produced by the false 
denunciation of unprincipled demagogues, that the Democratic State 
Rights party contemplated a dissolution of the Union, either directly 
or indirectly, by means of the convention, and that the issue in the 
election was "Union or Disunion;" and asserted that it was their 
firm and deliberate conviction that a great majority of the people of 
Mississippi were in favor of the principles and policy set forth in 
the resolutions of the Democratic State Rights Convention in June.^ 
But the members of the Democratic State Rights party, for the most 
part, interpreted the election as a declaration by the majority of the 
people of Mississippi in favor of acquiescing in the compromise and 



» Resolutions adopted by a meeting in Madison county, September 8, 1851, 
Weekly Independent, October 18, 1851; Resolutions adopted by a meeting in Attala 
county, September 15, 1851, Ibid. 



212 Mississippi Historical Society. 

gave in their submission to that decision as "the verdict of the 
sovereign people."^ 

Quitman agreed with the majority of the members of his party in 
this interpretation of the results of the election and, deeply chagrined 
at what he considered the condemnation by the people of Mississippi 
of his policy on the slavery question while governor and the princi- 
ples upon which he was again nominated for that office, resigned as 
the candidate of his party for governor.^ The Democratic State 
Rights party was thus left, as the result of the election of delegates 
to the state convention, in the midst of a campaign for the election 
of state officers and members of Congress, without a platform and 
without a candidate for governor. 

As a standard bearer to replace Quitman, the sentiment of the party 
was unanimously in favor of Jefferson Davis. Accordingly, he was 
placed in nomination for governor by the executive committee of the 
party, ten days after Quitman's resignation; and, with true self-sacri- 
fice, resigned his office as senator to serve the party in its hour of 
need. 

But as to the issues upon which the campaign should be continued, 
there was not the same unanimity of opinion among the members 
of the Democratic State Rights party as there was in regard to the 
nominee to replace Quitman. Those who did not regard the election 
as a decision by the people of Mississippi in favor of acquiescing in 
the compromise insisted that it was the duty of the party to sustain 
the platform adopted by it in the June convention.* Some argued 
that, although the people had agreed to acquiesce in the compromise, 
it did not follow that they approved that measure; and urged that 
the contest for governor should be based on the issue whether the 
compromise measures and the conduct of the Southern men who sup- 
ported them were approved or disapproved.^ Others urged that 
all issues connected with the compromise should be dropped and the 

* Yazoo Democrat, September 17, 1851; Meeting of the Southern Rights Associa- 
tion at Benton, Yazoo county, September 13, 1850, Ibid. 

* Address of Quitman to the Democratic State Rights Party of Mississippi, 
September 6, 1851, Claiborne, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, II, 
146-147. 

* Resolutions adopted by a meeting in Madison coimty, September 8, 1851, 
Weekly Independent, October 18, 1851; Resolutions adopted by a meeting in Attala 
coimty, September 15, 1851. Ibtd. 

' Yazoo Democrat, September 17, 1851. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 213 

campaign made on the old ones of Democratic principles in opposition 
to Whig measures.^ 

But on Jejfferson Davis, who agreed to assume the leadership of 
the party in its defeat, rested, to a great extent, the responsibility 
of determining its interpretation of the results of the September elec- 
tions and its course in the rest of the campaign for the other elections. 
Recognizing this, he issued, soon after his nomination, an "Address 
to the People of Mississippi," discussing these questions. 

In regard to the first he wrote: 

Since the recent election of delegates to the State Convention I have asked my- 
self what have the people decided? Have they decided the issue which was pre- 
sented by one party, but never accepted by the other — of Union or Disunion, 
in favor of the Union? Then I am with the majority, and know of no party in the 
State opposed to the decision. The people of Mississippi have given too many and 
conclusive proofs, by acts which speak louder than words, of their attachment to the 
Union, and willingness to make all proper sacrifices for it. The "Democratic 
State Rights Convention" of June last, speaking of State secession, in their 15th 
resolution, said: "Whilst we assert the right we consider it the last remedy, the 
final alternative, and also declare that the exercise of it, by the State of Mississippi, 
under existing circumstances would be inexpedient, and is a proposition which 
does not meet the approbation of this Convention." Did the election, then, de- 
cide that Mississippi should not secede from the Union? I know of no party, 
and trust there are few, very few individuals, who desired that she should adopt so 
suicidal a policy. Did the election decide that the people of Mississippi approved 
the action of Congress on the subject of slavery, and the territories of the United 
States? I hope not, I believe not. For the future as well as the past, I should 
deeply lament such a decision. Have the people decided that, though not satis- 
fied, not approving, yet they will bear the evil without seeking any remedy, and 
shape their future action by the course of future events? I bow to the popular 
judgment, and but fulfill the declaration I have heretofore made, and comply with 
the duty of a citizen when I say I acquiesce in the decision of the people, the 
source of all power in the State, whatever that decision may be.^ 

Having accepted the results of the election as an expression of the 
wiU of the people to acquiesce in the compromise, Davis proposed 
to continue the campaign on the issue of the domestic policy of Mis- 
sissippi. Therefore, putting aside all issues relating to the position 
of the state in its federal relations with the declaration that the con- 
vention of the state to assemble m November and the subsequent 
action of the people upon its proceedings would settle those questions, 
he closed his address to the people of Mississippi by presenting his 
views in regard to the educational and economic development of 
the state.^ 



* Mississippi Free Trader, September 16, 1851. 

7 Address of Jeflferson Davis to the People of Mississippi, September 25, 1851, 
Ibid., October 8, 1851. 
Uhid. 



214 Mississippi Historical Society. 

The Union party, however, had been too successful with the old 
issues to allow them to be discarded for new ones without opposition. 
They declared that the "Secessionists and Disunionists " were under- 
taking an " unmitigated 5W«i/e" in endeavoring to produce the im- 
pression that the question of secession was settled and that they 
acquiesced in the decision of the people, for they did not acquiesce 
nor did they consider the question settled.® The Whig press main- 
tained that there was no change in the campaign except the substi- 
tution of the name of Davis for that of Quitman smce the issues were 
the same; asserted that there was not a voter in the state who did 
not know that the tendencies of the principles of Davis were as dan- 
gerous to the perpetuity of the Union and the peace and harmony 
of the country as were those of Quitman;^" and ridiculed the attempt 
of Davis to make the people believe that there had been no disunion 
party in the state, or if there had been, it was the Union party." 

The Democratic papers that had gone over to the support of the 
Union party, but admired Davis, were fairly caught in the unexpected 
turn the campaign had taken. They took no pleasure in opposing 
Davis and the difference between their treatment of him in this can- 
vass and that of the Whig papers is of great significance for the fu- 
ture of the Union party. The attitude of the Primitive Republican 
towards Davis is typical of that of other Democratic papers support- 
ing the Union ticket. It declared in an editorial on Davis's "Ad- 
dress to the People of Mississippi:" 

Like ever3rthing emanating from Davis, the address is a calm, dignified, and 
plausible production. It is mainly devoted to an exposition of his course on the 
compromise measures, the whole being pervaded by a substratum of Democracy. 
In the present antagonism which Davis has arbitrarily assimied towards Foote, 
our convictions of justice constrain us to sustain the latter. We repeat, however, 
that those who contemplate with pleasure the political destruction of Davis find 
no sympathy in our breast, while we are free to confess that he has adopted the most 
promising means of his own martyrdom in the position which he now occupies. 
Upon what principle he could resign his commission as Senator, and invoke the 
support of the people for Governor, we do not understand, unless upon the falla- 
cious idea that there is not room enough m the public service for both Foote and 
himself.^ 



* Hinds County Gazette, September 25, 1851. 
" Vicksburg Daily Whig, September 24, 1851. 

" Criticism of Davis's Speech in Aberdeen, October 20, 1851, Weekly Indepen- 
dent, October 25, 1851. 

'2 Primitive Republican, October 9, 1851. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Eearon. 215 

The elections took place on the third and fourth of November and 
resulted in a victory for the Union party, though its majorities were 
not so great as in the election of delegates to the convention. Al- 
though Davis had been ill at the time of his nomination and, conse- 
quently, had not been able to canvass during a part of the short pe- 
riod between that event and the election, the vote cast for him was 
only 999 less than that for Foote.*^ This great reduction in the ma- 
jority of Foote below that of the candidates of the Union party for 
the convention was not due to a loss of votes by Foote, for he received 
more votes than they did; but to the fact that many people who 
had not voted in the September elections voted for Davis in No- 
vember. 

In the contests for the other admim* strati ve oflSces, the Union party 
elected its candidates by majorities larger than Foote's. It, also, 
returned sixty-three out of the ninety-eight members of the lower 
house of the legislature, but elected only seven of the sixteen members 
of the senate chosen that year." In the congressional elections, its 
candidates, Nabors, Wilcox, and Freeman defeated Thompson, Fea- 
therston, and McWillie, who had, as members of the thirty-first Con- 
gress, violently opposed the passage of the compromise and, as leaders 
of the Democratic State Rights party, urged the adoption by the 
state of a policy of resistance to it. But A. G. Brown, the most radi- 
cal and the most outspoken of all the delegates from Mississippi in 
the thirty-first Congress both in opposition to the passage of the 
compromise and in favor of the adoption by the state of measures 
of resistance to it, was returned to his seat in Congress by the votes 
of his loyal supporters in the "piney woods" counties.^^ 

However open to different interpretations the elections of delegates 
to the state convention may have been, only one construction could 
be placed on the results of the November elections. His opponents 
and even members of his own party had refused to accept the state- 
ment of Davis that the Democratic State Rights party regarded the 
vote in the September elections as a decision of the people of the state 



" House Journal, 1852, 256. Foote received 29,358 votes; Davis, 28,359- 
" Tribune Almanac, 1852, 44. > • ^i. c ♦ 

The results of the election gave the Union party eleven members m tne benate 
and the Democratic State Rights party twenty-one. 
« lUd. 



2i6 Mississippi Historical Society. 

in favor of acquiescing in the compromise and accepted it as an ex- 
pression of the sovereign will of the state of Mississippi; and to allow 
him to shift the election for state offices to domestic issues.^® There- 
fore, the question at issue in the November elections was again the 
policy of the state in regard to the compromise; and the people, on 
this occasion, gave their decision unmistakably in favor of acquies- 
cence in that measure. 

However, the decision of the state in regard to the adjustment of 
the issues that had risen in the great struggle over slavery was not 
left to be settled by the interpretation of results of elections. For 
the convention of the people of the state that met November lo, 
1851, officially set forth the "deliberate judgment" of the people of 
Mississippi "on the great questions involved in the sectional contro- 
versy between the slaveholding and non-slaveholding states of the 
Americal Union" in the following resolutions: 

1. Resolved, That in the opinion of this Convention, the people of Mississippi, 
in a spirit of conciliation and compromise, have maturely considered the action 
of Congress, embracing a series of measures for the admission of California as a 
State into the Union, the organization of Territorial Governments for Utah and 
New Mexico, the establishment of the boimdary between the latter and the State 
of Texas, the suppression of the Slave Trade in the District of Columbia, and the 
extradition of Fugitive Slaves, and connected with them, the rejection of the propo- 
sition to exclude slavery from the Territories of the United States, and to abolish 
it in the District of Columbia, and whilst they do not entirely approve, will abide 
by it as a permanent adjustment of this sectional controversy, so long as the same, 
in all its features, shall be faithfully adhered to and enforced. 

2. Resolved, That we perceive nothing in the above recited legislation of the 
Congress of the United States which should be permitted to disturb the friendly 
and peaceful "existing relations between the Government of the United States 
and the Government and people of the State of Mississippi." 

3. Therefore, Resolved, That in the opinion of this Convention the people of 
the State of Mississippi will abide by the Union as it is, and by the Constitution 
of the United States without amendment — That they hold the Union secondary 
in importance only to the rights and principles it was designed to perpetuate; that 
past associations, present fruition, and future prosperity will bind them to it so long 
as it continues to be the safeguard of those rights and principles. 

4. Resolved, Further, That in the opinion of this Convention, the asserted nght 
of secession from the Union on the part of a State or States is utterly xmsanctioned 
by the Federal Constitution, which was framed to "establish," and not to destroy 

i«The Mississippi Free Trader, November i, 1851, declared that the issue in 
the elections on the third and fourth of November was acquiescence or non-aqui- 
escence in the absorption by free soilism of all the public domain owned, or to_ be 
owned, by the United States, for the decree had gone forth from the great mouthpiece 
of the Whig administration, Daniel Webster, "that /row henceforth and forever, no 
more slaveholding states shall ever be admitted into the Union;" and urged that, since 
the popular convention had been lost, the people of the state should elect a firm 
Southern legislature. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hear on. 217 

the Union of the States, and that no secession can in fact take place, without a 
subversion of the Union established, and which will not virtually amount in its 
effects and consequences to a civil revolution." 

5. Resolved, Further, That whilst in the opinion of this Convention, such are 
the sentiments and opinions of the people of the State of Mississippi, still viola- 
tions of the rights of the people may occur which would amount to intolerable op- 
pression, and would justify a resort to measures of resistance, amongst which, in the 
opinion of the Convention, the people of the State have designated the follow- 
ing: 

I. The interference by Congressional Legislation with the institution of Slavery 
in the States. 2. Interference with the trade in Slaves between the States. 3. 
Any action of Congress on the subject of Slavery in the District of Columbia, or 
in places subject to the jurisdiction of Congress, incompatible with the safety and 
domestic tranquility — the rights and honor of the slaveholding States. 4. The 
refusal by Congress to admit a new State into the Union on the ground of her 
tolerating slavery within her limits. 5. The passage of any law by Congress pro- 
hibiting slavery in any of the territories. 6. The repeal of the Fugutive Slave 
Law, and the neglect or refusal by the General Government to enforce the con- 
stitutional provisioas for the reclamation of Fugitive Slaves. 

6. Resolved Further, That in the opinion of this Convention the people in the 
recent elections have been governed by an abiding confidence that the said adjust- 
ment measures of Congress would be enforced m good faith in every section of 
the land.18 

Though these resolutions expressed the opinions of the majority 
of the convention, they did not meet the approval of all the delegates. 
The three members of the Democratic State Rights party of the com- 
mittee on resolutions submitted to the convention a report, in which 
they presented the views of their party on the questions discussed 
in the majority report. The resolutions presented in the minority 
report declared that the convention, believing that the position of 

17 William Barksdale, of Lowndes county, a Union delegate, moved to strike out 
this resolution, and Joseph B. Cobb, also a Union delegate from the same county, 
while admitting the doctrine of the resolution, declared that it was inexpedient " to 
adopt an open and abstract question as the permanent position of a sovereign State, 
and sought to have the doctrine asserted, as a matter of opinion by the members of 
the convention, apart from the main body of its action; but the convention by a vote 
of 22 to 67 declined to strike out the resolution and passed it by a vote of 73 to 17. 
Those who voted against the resolution were Barksdale, of Lowndes; Backstrom, 
of Neshoba; Cherry, of Jasper; Cannon, of Oktibbeha; Connelly, of Pike; Easterimg, 
of Jones; Edwards, of Pontotoc; GiUiland, of Attala; Jones, of FranUin; Keon, of 
Smith; MiUer, of Copiah; McLendon, of Clark; PhiUips, of Marshall; Scales, of 
Sunflower; Smith, of Scott; Sturgis, of Copiah; Sturgis, of Simpson. Journal of 
the Convention of the State of Mississippi, 1851, SZ- . y, . , _ 

18 Preamble and Resolutions as adopted by the Convention, Ibid., 47-4»; 
There were two other resolutions in this series. In the seventh, the convention 

declared that it deemed it unnecessary to refer its action to the people of the state 
for their approval or disapproval, on the ground that the people desired all further 
agitation of the slavery question to cease and had already decided all the questions 
acted upon. In the eighth resolution, the convention censured the legislature 
for having called a convention of the state without having first submitted to the 
people the question of whether there should be a convention or not. 



2i8 Mississippi Historical Society. 

the people of the state on the slavery question had been fully defined 
in the report and resolutions of the October convention of 1849, con- 
sidered it inexpedient to assume any new position on that question; 
that it deemed it right and proper that full weight should be given 
in its action to the will of a majority of the people of Mississippi, as 
expressed in the election in September, in regard to the slavery ques- 
tion; that it considered acquiescence in the measures of Congress 
called the compromise the settled poHcy of the people of Mississippi, 
as indicated by that election; but that it did not regard the election 
in September as an expression in favor of the justice or the wisdom 
of the whole series of those measures, but rather as an assent yielded 
to them, by the people, in preference to the adoption of any course 
that might tend to endanger the union of the states, and that, while 
the people had thus yielded their assent to those measures, in view 
.of all the surrounding circumstances, they had in nowise intended to 
sanction them, so that they should be thereafter invoked as prece- 
dents of right against them; and, finally, that the convention deemed 
it proper to declare that the government of the United States is one 
of delegated power, formed by delegates from the several sovereign 
states, and limited by a written constitution, which was ratified by 
the states separately; that all powers not expressly delegated, or neces- 
sary to carry out the delegated powers, were reserved to the states 
respectively, and that it necessarily followed, that any state possessed 
the right to judge of infractions of the constitution, and that when- 
ever an exigency should arrive, which, in the opinion of the people 
of the state, was sufficient to justify the step, a state had an unques- 
tionable right to resume the delegated powers and withdraw from the 
Union.^' 

Although this report was laid on the table by a vote of 72 to 14,^" 
it is hardly second in importance to the resolutions adopted by the 
convention, for it expressed the views of a large minority in the state, 

'' Minority report submitted to the convention from the committee on resolu- 
tions by Wm. R. Cannon, W. P. Harris, and Sam'l N. Gilliland. Journal of the 
Convention of the State of Mississippi, 1851, 27-30. 

2" Journal of the Convention of the State of Mississippi, 1851, 42. 

The delegates who voted in the negative were: Backstrom, of Neshoba; Cherry, 
of Jasper; Carmon, of Oktibbeha; Connelly, of Pike; Easterling, of Jones; Gilliland, 
of Attala; Harris, of Lawrence; Keown, of Smith; Miller, of Copiah; McLendon, 
of Clark; Scales, of Sunpson; Smith, of Scott; Sturges, of Copiah; and Sturges, 
of Simpson. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 219 

if not a majority, in the position it took in regard to the questions 
before the convention.^^ 

But both the resolutions adopted by the convention and those 
supported by the minority in that body agreed that the majority of 
the people of Mississippi had decided in favor of acquiescence in the 
compromise, and accepted the decision as the verdict of the sovereign 
will of the state. Therefore, the proceedings of the convention mark 
the end of the great struggle in Mississippi over the compromise of 1850. 

With the acquiescence of Mississippi in that measure, South Caro- 
lina was left alone in opposition to it. As has been seen, in the con- 
vention of the Southern Rights Association of South Carolina in 
May, 185 1, a movement had been laimched in favor of separate se- 



21 That the minority report, in addition to expressing the views of the Demo- 
cratic party also expressed the sentiment of some of those who had supported the 
Union ticket in the elections, is shown by the attitude of the Primilive Republican 
toward the resolutions adopted by the convention. In its issue of November 27, 
185 1, this paper declared: "The policy of final acquiescence was urged — not be- 
cause the Compromise measures were 'liberal and just' — nor because sovereign 
States had no redress— but 'for the sake of the Union'— the policy of acquiescence 
being accompanied by an expression of disapproval of the settlement, while its 
acceptance was proclaimed to be sacred and inviolable at all risks. Such is our 
'Union platform.' .... .... 

"In as far as the Union party of Mississippi was based upon the practical issue 
of acquiescence in the slavery settlement, we were naturally allied with it — no 
farther. This we expressly asserted when we placed its candidate at our mast- 
head. We repudiated the political theories which prevailed in that party, and 
which the late convention embodied mto a public creed. If the transient nature 
of the issues which that Convention was alone called to deterrnine for the State 
of Mississippi, had not dissolved any connection of ours with it, its late action 
inevitably produced that result We propose to review the proceed- 
ings of the Convention next week." J «T-U 

In its next issue, December 4, 1851, the Primitive Republican asserted: the 
composition of the Union ticket for the Convention, in this county, furnished a 
conclusive fact against the false and fradulent assumption that the nght of seces- 
sion was in issue. If so, how was it that Capt. Wm. Barksdale was nommated and 
elected as a Union candidate? We refer the reader to his remarks upon our first 
page in which he proclaimed in Convention what was known durmg the canvass 
to be his fixed views upon this subject. The truth is that the proceedmgs of the 
body and especially its fourth resolution, 'was not the entertainment to which we 
were 'invited.' If it had been, we know of several prominent gentlemen m this 
place who would have with us promptly declined. ...... 

"If we turn to the Union platform of the State we find it equaUy silent upon 
the subject in regard to which the late Convention volunteered a sweeping affirma- 
tion, a subject upon which at least there was an honest contranety of opmion 
amongst the friends of the Union cause, and one in no way connected with tfie 
discharge of the practical and legitunate business. ....... . 

"In view of these dogmatic tests, any connection of ours with the umon party, 
as contradistinguished from the UNION CAUSE, would have been inevitably 
dissolved, even if the decision of the isolated issue for which the Convention assembled, 
had not IPSO FACTO, finished the mission of the Umon party. 



220 Mississippi Historical Society. 

cession by South Carolina in resistance to the compromise. Time, 
however, had been given for the intense excitement in that state to 
subside and a soberer second thought to take its place. Therefore, 
as one Southern state after another gave in its submission to the com- 
promise and, finally, even Mississippi refused to support a policy of 
resistance to it, the people of South CaroUna Ustened more willingly 
to those who counselled against the rashness of separate state action; 
and in the election of delegates to the Southern congress, on the 
second Monday in October and the day following, gave their deci- 
sion against that policy by electing a large majority of delegates who 
were its pledged opponents.22 But the people of South Carolina 
understood that all the other Southern states had declined to meet 
their state in this congress to which they were choosing delegates 
and that cooperative action on the part of the Southern states against 
the compromise had definitely failed; therefore, their decision, in 
this election, against separate state action closed the struggle in the 
state over the compromise of 1850. 

It remained, however, for the state convention to meet, April 26, 
1852, and the proceedings of that body fittingly mark the end of the 
first great crisis over slavery. For, in the resolution and ordinance 
adopted, South Carolina formally assumed the position to which a 
large part of the South had advanced in this struggle in defense of sla- 
very and which the section, as a whole, was to occupy in the next 
great crisis over that institution. 

By a vote of 136 to 19 the convention resolved: 

That the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States by the 
Federation Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the 
sovereign States of this Union, especially in relation to slavery, amply justify 
this State, so far as any duty or obligation to her confederates is involved in dis- 
solving at once all political connection with her co-States; and that she forbears 
the exercise of this manifest right of self-government from considerations of expe- 
diency only 

and ordained: 

That South Carolina, in the exercise of her sovereign will, as an independent State 
acceded to the Federal Union, known as the United States of America; and that in 
the exercise of the same sovereign will it is her right, without let, hindrance, or 
molestation from any power whatsoever, to secede from the said Federal Union; 
and that for the sufficiency of the causes which may impel her to such separation, 
she is responsible alone, under God, to the tribunal of public opinion among the 
nations of the earth.^' 

^National Era, October 23, 1851; Ibid., November 13, 1851. 
2' Journals of the Conventions of the People of South Carolina held in 183 2, 1833, 
and 1852, 150-151. 



CHAPTER XII. 

PERMANENT SIGNIFICANCE IN MISSISSIPPI OF THE CRISIS OVER THE 
COMPROMISE OF 1850. 

The permanent significance in Mississippi of the controversy over 
the extension of slavery in the territory acquired from Mexico and 
the compromise of 1850 hes in the relation of that controversy to the 
long struggle waged by Mississippi, in common with the other South- 
ern states, in defense of slavery, which resulted in their withdrawal 
from the Union. 

In this crisis, the people of Mississippi definitely assumed the posi- 
tion in regard to slavery that they were to occupy throughout the 
struggle between the sections over that institution. In 1850, be- 
cause of the great returns from slave labor in the production of 
cotton, slaves had been introduced into Mississippi in such num- 
bers that they outnumbered the white population; and the people 
of the state had accepted the institution of slavery as the basis of 
their economic, poUtical, and social order. Moreover, they saw no 
practicable method of ever removing the negroes from their midst 
and were convinced that the abolition of slavery without that pre- 
caution would result in a conflict between the two races, which would 
end in the extermination of one or the other and the desolation of the 
South. Consequently, all classes in Mississippi, deeply moved by 
the strength of the abohtion sentiment manifested in the North, in 
this controversy, definitely assimied a position in defense of the 
institution of slavery. 

Furthermore, this crisis revealed not only that the people of Mis- 
sissippi were unanimous in support of slavery, but also that they had 
ceased to regard it as an evil. For the pubUc men, the press, and the 
people in pubUc meetings and conventions, almost without excep- 
tion, praised the institution as conducive to the welfare of both races 
and defended it as founded on the laws of nature and sanctioned by 
the Bible. 



222 Mississippi Historical Society. 

But, notwithstanding the unanimity of determination to defend 
the institution of slavery manifested by the people of Mississippi in 
this struggle, a cleavage, which was to continue throughout the con- 
troversy between the sections over slavery, was evident among them 
in regard to the policy to be pursued in the defense of that institution. 
The large slaveholders, because of their great property interests, 
took a position in opposition to the adoption of a policy in defense 
of slavery that might disturb the existing order; while the non-slave- 
holders, partly because they had less interests of property at stake, 
but more because their social position was not so far removed from 
that of the slaves as that of the great planters was, and because 
there existed between them and the negroes great mutual distrust 
and dislike, manifested a greater willingness to resort to extreme 
measures in defense of slavery then the large slaveholders. 

In spite of this cleavage, in regard to the extent to which they were 
willing to go in defense of slavery, the people of Mississippi were thor- 
oughly alarmed and aroused by the strength of the abolition senti- 
ment manifested in the North and convinced that they could not 
with safety allow any further encroachments by the majority section 
upon the rights of the South. Therefore, they accepted the measures 
of the compromise as a final adjustment of the questions concerning 
slavery at issue between the sections and expressed the determination 
to resist any further infringement or disregard of their rights in re- 
spect to that institution. 

In this controversy, the people of Mississippi foimd it necessary, 
as Calhotm and Quitman had foreseen in the days of nullification, to 
turn to the doctrine of state sovereignty to protect their interests 
bound up with slavery, from a majority hostile to that institution. 
In the struggle to prevent the passage of the Wilmot proviso, both 
the Whigs and the Democrats in Mississippi took the position that 
the states were sovereign and that the federal government was their 
agent and possessed only such powers as were granted to it by the 
constitution, with such limited powers as might be indispensably 
necessary as incident to the express grant. 

But when a lack of imity developed in the state in regard to the 
measures of the compromise, a corresponding divergence appeared 
with respect to questions of political theory. Those in favor of re- 
sisting the compromise turned to the withdrawal of the Southern 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 223 

states from the Union as the only effective means of obtaining re- 
dress for the rights of the South injured or imperiled by that measure 
and security from further encroachments, and, consequently, asserted 
the right of a state to resort to secession from the Union as a final 
measure in defense of its rights from assimiptions of power by the 
federal government not sanctioned by the constitution; while those 
who favored the acquiescence of the state in the compromise, in op- 
position to the measures of redress advocated by those in favor of 
resistance, denied the right of a state to secede from the Union. In 
order to influence the people of the state to adopt the policy it advo- 
cated, each side, of course, advanced argiunents in support of its 
position concerning the right of secession, though the discussions 
show that the main interest, during this controversy, in the question 
of secession, was not in the right of a state to secede from the Union 
but in the expediency. 

The arguments of the spokesmen of both parties were based, for 
the most part, on the compact theory of government and they quoted 
copiously from the writings of Jefferson, Madison, Spencer Roane, 
John Taylor, of Caroline, and other exponents of that school of polit- 
ical theory that characterized the members of the early state rights 
school of Virginia, whom they were so fond of quoting. Of the poUt- 
ical philosophy of Calhoun, who so ably set forth the organic theory 
of government, which was later to serve as the basis for both the 
assertion and the denial of the constitutional right of a state to se- 
cede from the Union, and of the arguments that great political genius 
presented so convincingly, in the midst of this controversy, to estab- 
lish tlie doctrine of state sovereignty and the consequent right of 
secession, the leaders of Mississippi showed, in the crisis, little knowl- 
edge or understanding. 

That the people of Mississippi were not so keenly interested in the 
constitutionality of the right of a state to secede from the Union as 
they were to become later and that the leaders of the state did not 
feel, with Calhoun, the necessity of estabhshing that measure as a 
constitutional right is shown by the willingness manifested by many 
of those who supported secession as a final resort in resistance to the 
compromise to waive the question of its constitutionaUty and to 
assert it as a revolutionary right. No less a person than Jefferson 
Davis, in fact, advocated it as a revolutionary right. He said, if 



224 Mississippi Historical Society. 

he were asked what right states had to go out of the Union, his re- 
ply would be reserved rights not found in the constitution because 
they were above the constitution. It was truly said, he added, that 
secession was the right of revolution and if the colonies had a right 
to secede from the British rule, although that secession was opposed, 
by the same reason a state had a right to secede from the federal govern- 
ment.^ 

Although those in Mississippi who were in favor of secession as a 
final resort for the protection of the rights of the people of the state 
did not, in this struggle, insist upon the constitutionality of that 
measure as they did later, and had not come to understand and ac- 
cept the political theories of Calhoun, upon which they were finally 
to base the right of their state to secede from the Union, yet this 
struggle was of great importance in the development of the seces- 
sion movement in Mississippi. For, during its course, the political 
leaders whom the people of the state were accustomed to follow 
accepted the right of a state to secede from the Union; and, imder 
their influence, the dominant political party in the state asserted that 
no right could be more clear or more essential to the protection of 
the minority than the right of a state peaceably to withdraw from 
the Union, without denial or obstruction from any quarter whatever. 
Furthermore, although the convention of the people of the state, in 
November, 1851, declared that the asserted right of secession from 
the Union on the part of a state or states was unsanctioned by the 
federal constitution and that no secession could, in fact, take place 
without a subversion of the Union, which would virtually amount 
in its effects and consequences to a civil revolution, later events proved 
that the position of the Democratic State Rights party on that 
question rather than that of the Union party, which dominated the 
state convention, represented the sentiment of the majority of the 
people of Mississippi. 

For the former party, without renouncing its views on secession, 
Avas, within the next two years, returned to power by the people of 
Mississippi and its leaders, who had been rejected in the elections of 
1851 were restored to positions of honor and influence. In 1853, John 
J. McRae was elected governor, a Democratic majority was returned 

* Speech of Jefferson Davis at Fayette, Mississippi Free Trader, July 23, 1851. 



Mississippi and the Compromise of ^iS'^Eearm. »5 

,0 .oth i^ouses of the ie,s.a„d a ^^ °— t.^rSte 

StrntriTt^ee^TSMsaL^^^^^ 

to a seat in the United States Senate^ C^iTerTnd ^aUy, in x855. 

was elevated to the -^^^^^^^ ^J^ZZL of that body from 

John A. Quitman was elected to ^^e^w ^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^ 

the fifth congressional district of Miss'ssW j^ ^g 

tions of leadership in the state. ^^-tection of the rights of 

In this crisis, the practicabihty of ^^ff^f^^^J^^olding states 
the south through ^e c-P-^^^-^^lt^iippi Ld the 
was thoroughly t^^'^'^V y.°' ^"^ ''n^the South presented to the 
other Southern ^^^^^tll^iM would obtain aU that it 
country its demands with a vmitea y , consequently they 

had a right, under the "f t^'^;'""' 'V^^^^^tr " le^or ti^ pro- 
based the measures that they advocated, "> ""f '^^ ^^^,,^. 
.ecUon of the "S^ts of^idr « u^n t^^pohcy^oU ^ ^^^^^ 
tive action of the Southern ^'^tes. i y ^^^^ ^^^ ^ 

the South in the demands that "f^" "'^ .^"^^j,/,,, abolishing 

biu ^^'>^^i^%ii^:^:^:^::zt:. -d by congress. 

slavery m the District oi i-oiumu 4 j^ ^^f 

, t.j ti,o rassaee of those measures, cul lucj 

and prevented the P^^^^;^?^" ^ opposition to the admission of 

able to effect a umon of the South m oppos ^^_ 

CalHornia under her consutuuonexclutogsla™^^^^ ^^ 

tended boundaries. For ^^'^^I'l^J^^^.y holding and 
party and partly because of the ^^^^'■'^'■^'11^ possibUity of a 
LsLaUveg^up^iey became alW^^ 

rrSie-'N^rtltoul refused to s^^^^^^ 



226 Mississippi Historical Society. 

to the overthrow of slavery or the dissolution of the Union, were un- 
willing to acquiesce in that measure; and, not discouraged by the 
failure of their efforts to prevent the passage of the bills of the com- 
promise through Congress by the cooperative action of the Southern 
States, again had recourse to the same policy to obtain redress for 
the injuries inflicted on their section by the compromise and security 
for their interests in the future. 

Jefferson Davis, A. G. Brown, Jacob Thompson, and other Mis- 
sissippi leaders who advocated the adoption of a policy of resistance 
to the compromise were firmly persuaded that, if the South united 
in presenting to the coimtry the alternative of granting its demands 
or seeing the Southern states withdraw from the Union, the North 
would give way and grant all the South desired; therefore, they were, 
without doubt, sincere in denying that they were seeking to promote 
a dissolution of the Union in agitating the presentation of this alter- 
native. Moreover, though the leaders of the movement in Missis- 
sippi in favor of resisting the compromise may have preferred the 
secession of the Southern states and the formation of a Southern 
confederacy to submission to that measure, yet, with the exception 
of Quitman and perhaps a few others of less importance, they were 
opposed to separate secession on the part of Mississippi in resistance 
to the compromise and were convinced that, if all the Southern states, 
or a group of them even, were ready to secede, secession on their 
part would be imnecessary. 

However, in the contest in Mississippi over the course the state 
should pursue towards the compromise, the policy of cooperative 
action on the part of the Southern states in opposition to it, advo- 
cated by the leaders of the party of resistance, very early became 
impracticable because of the failure of the movements in favor of 
resisting the compromise in all the other Southern states except 
South Carolina; and those in favor of submission to the compromise 
succeeded in fixing on their opponents the charge of seeking to pro- 
mote a dissolution of the Union in opposition to that measure and 
favoring separate state secession. Accordingly, the elections of 1851 
turned upon the question of submission to the compromise or the 
adoption by the state of a policy of resistance to it in conjunction with 
South Carolina, which might lead to the secession of Mississippi with 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 227 

South Carolina alone; and the people of Mississippi pronotmced in 
favor of the former policy. 

To recapitulate, in this struggle over the extension of slavery into 
the territories acquired from Mexico and the compromise of 1850, 
the people of IVlississippi were thoroughly alarmed by the strength 
of the hostility to slavery manifested m the North and convinced 
that their political, economic, and social interests were seriously im- 
periled by the aboHtion sentiment in the majority section; and united 
in the determination to allow no further encroachments on the rights 
of the South connected with slavery. Moreover, the right of a state 
to secede from the Union as a final measure in defense of its rights 
against the assumption of power by the federal government not 
sanctioned by the constitution, was accepted by the political leaders 
whom the people were accustomed to follow, proclaimed by the domi- 
nant party in the state, and made familiar to all; and, finally, the 
policy of uniting the slaveholding states to secure the protection 
of the rights of the South within the Union or to secede and form a 
separate confederacy for that purpose was tested and found to be 
impracticable. 

Therefore, in the controversy over the extension of slavery in the 
territory acquired from Mexico and the compromise of 1850, the 
people of Mississippi were prepared to defend their interests bound up 
with slavery, in the next great crisis between the sections over that 
institution, by the policy of separate state secession. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Documentary: 

Speeches, Messages, and Other Writings of the Bon. Albert G. Brown, a Sena- 
tor from the State of Mississippi, edited by M. W. Cluskey. New York, 

1859. 
The Correspondence of John C. Calhoun, edited by J. F. Jameson, Annual 

Report of the Americal Historical Association, 1899, Vol. II. 
The Works of John C. Calhoun, edited by Richard K. Crall6, 6 Vols. New 

York, 1854-1861. 
Census Reports of the United States. 

The Claiborne Papers, State Archives, Jackson, Mississippi. 
The Private Correspondence of Henry Clay, edited by Calvin Colton, LL.D. 

Cincinnati, 1856. 
The Political Text-Book or Encyclopedia, edited by M. W. Cluskey. Washing- 
ton, 1857. 
Congressional Globe and Appendix. 

Journal of the Convention of the State of Mississippi, 1 83 2 . Jackson, 1 83 2 . 
Journal of the Convention of the State of Mississippi and the Act Calling the 

Same, 1851. Jackson, 1851. 
Journal of the Senate of the State of Mississippi, at a regular biennial session 

thereof, convened January 7, 1850. Jackson, 1850. 
Journal of the House of the State of Mississippi, as a regular biennial session 

thereof, convened January 7, 1S50. Jackson, 1850. 
Journals of the Conventions of the People of South Carolina, held in 1832, 1833, 

and 1852. Columbia, i860. 
Laws of the State of Mississippi Passed at a Regular Session of the Mississippi 

Legislature held in the city of Jackson, January, February, and March, 1850. 

Jackson, 1850. 
Laws of the State of Mississippi passed at a called Session of the Mississippi 

Legislature held in the city of Jackson, November, 1850. Jackson, 1850. 
Mississippi Territorial Archives, I7g8-i8iy, compiled and edited by Dun- 
bar Rowland, Vol. I, Nashville, 1905. 
The Diary of James K. Polk during His Presidency, 1845-1849, edited by 

Milo Milton Quaife. Chicago, 1910. 
The Tribune Almanac for the Years 1838 to 1868. New York, 1868. 

Newspapers: 

National Era, 1847-1852. 

National Intelligencer, 1847-1852. 

New York Tribune, 1847-1852. 

Niles' National Register, September 5, 1846 — June 27, 1849. 

Columbus Democrat, September 9, 1848 — Feburary 5, 1853. (Union Demo- 
cratic.) 

Tkt Constitution (Oxford), March 22, 1851 — September 27, 1851. (Demo- 
cratic.) 

Mississippi Free Trader (Natchez), November 30, i848^anuary, 1852. 
(Democratic.) 

Natchez Weekly Courier, October 4, 1848 — May i, 1850. (Whig.) 

Natchez Semi-weekly Courier, May 3, 1850 — December 30, 1851. (Whig.) 

The Organizer (Oxford), March 31, 1849 — December 4, 1850. (Democratic.) 

228 



\ 



Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hear on. 229 

Hinds County Gazette (Raymond), July 6, 1849 — December 30, 1852. (Whig.) 

Primitive Republican (Columbus), January 9, 1851 — November 25, 1852. 
(Union Democratic.) 

Weekly and Triweekly Sentinel (Vicksburg), October 3, 1848 — ^June 4, 1850. 
(Democratic.) 

Southern Standard (Columbus), February i, 1851 — February 31, 1853. (Demo- 
cratic.) 

Vicksburg Whig, 1848-1852. (Whig). 

Weekly Independent (Aberdeen), December 21, 1850 — ^January 28, 1858. 
(Whig.) 

Yazoo Democrat, August 7, 1850 — October 11, 1854. (Democratic.) 

Biography; 

W. E. Dodd, Jefferson Davis. (American Crisis Biographies) Philadelphia, 

1907. 
J. W. Du Bose, Life and Times of William Lowndes Yancey. Birmingham, 

1892. 
J. F. H. Claiborne, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, 2 vols. New 

York, i860. 
Thomas Hart Clay, Henry Clay. Philadelphia, 1910. 
Mrs. Chapman Coleman, The Life of John J. Crittenden with Selections from 

His Correspondence and Speeches, 2 vols. Philadelphia, 1871. 
Varina Howell Davis, Jefferson Davis, Ex-President of the Confederate States 

of America; a Memoir by His Wife, 2 vols. New York, 1890. 
Gaillard Hunt, John C. Calhoun. (American Crisis Biographies) Phila- 
delphia, 1908. 
Johnston and Browne, Life of Alexander H. Stephens. Philadelphia, 1878. 
James D. Lynch, The Bench and Bar of Mississippi. New York, 1881. 
B. F. Perry, Biographical Sketches of Eminent American Statesman with 

Speeches, Addresses, and Letters. Philadelphia, 1887. 

General: 

J. F. H. Claiborne, Mississippi as a Province, Territory and State, with Bio- 
graphical Notices of Eminent Citizens. Vol. I., Jackson, 1880. 

Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, 2 vols. 
New York, 1881. 

Reuben Davis, Recollections of Mississippi and Mississippians. Boston and 
New York, 1891. 

Henry S. Foote, Casket "/ Reminiscences. Washington, 1874. 

George Pierce Garrison Westward Extension (American Nation Series). New 
York, 1906. , 

Joseph Hodgson, The Cradle of the Confederacy; or the Times of Troup, Quil- 
7nan and Yancey. Mobile, 1876. 

Herman E. von Hoist. The Constitutional and Political History of the United 
States. Vol. HI. Chicago, 1881. 

J. F. Rhodes, History of the United States, 1850-1877. Vol. I. New York, 1902. 

Franklin L. Riley, editor. Publications of the Mississippi Historical Society, 1 2 
vols. University, Mississippi, 1899-1912. 

Franklin L. Riley, A School History of Mississippi. Richmond, 1900. 

Dunbar Rowland, Encyclopedia of Mississippi History Comprising Sketches 
of Counties, Towns, Events, Institutions, and Persons. Planned and Edited 
by Dunbar Rowland, 2 vols. Madison, Wis., 1907. 

B. L. C. WaQes, Report on the Agriculture and Geology of Mississippi. Jack- 
son, 1854. 

James L. Watkins, King Cotton. A Historical and Statistical Review, lygo- 

igo8. New York, 1908. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 






011 898 106 6 





! 



•i 



!■:) 
■■I 




